Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 124.
Instituted on : 21.03.2018.
Decided on : 20.06.2019.
1. Smt. Meena Devi, wife of Sh. Raj Kumar,
2. Sh. Himanshu son of Sh. Raj Kumar,
3. Sh. Vinay son of Sh. Raj Kumar,
All residents of VPO- Aun, District Charkhi Dadri, at present Amrit Colony, Rohtak.
……….Complainants.
Vs.
1 S.B.I. Life Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, SCF-13, HUDA Commercial Complex, Rohtak through its Manager.
2 S.B.I. Life Insurance Company Limited “Natraj” M.V. Road & Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069 through its M.D.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.K. Barak, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:1. 1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s husband had got his life insured from respondent company under policy No.1J032686003 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant was nominated as nominee in the said insurance policy. That at the time of obtaining the policy, the complainant submitted all the relevant information to respondent company and he regularly deposited his insurance premium to respondents. That on 03.10.2017, the husband of the complainant approached to the office of respondent No. 1 to deposit the installment, but the concerned official told that they are busy in important files and asked him to come after a week. When on 12.10.2017, husband of the complainant again reached to deposit the installment, then concerned official told that online system is not working and he can deposit the installment upto 60 days. That husband of the complainant namely Raj Kumar had expired on 21.10.2017. It is alleged that after the death of her husband, the complainant intimated to respondent company in this regard and submitted her claim file alongwith all relevant documents and respondents assured the complainant to disburse the claim amount after completion of necessary formalities. The complainant has requested to the respondents so many times to disburse the claim amount, but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay amount Rs. 2,50,000/- alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date of its due/accrual till realization and Rs.1,00,000/- as harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the deceased Mr. Raj Kumar had submitted a duly filled and signed proposal form for SBI Life Saral Swadhan Plus Insurance plan alongwith an initial deposit of Rs.5000/- towards annual premium and opted for yearly mode for payment of premium. The above said policy was issued to the complainant with date of commencement 15.09.2015 for the basic sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- with annual premium and term of 10 years. The DLA had appointed Ms.Meena Devi as his nominee. It is specifically denied that the DLA regularly deposited premium with the opposite parties. In the instant case, the annual premium was payable on 15th September of every year during the term of the policy. The opposite parties had received renewal premium up to the due date 15.09.2016 under the policy but the premium since the due date 15.09.2017 was not received and hence the policy lapsed due to non payment of renewal premium. That the opposite parties have not refused to accept the premium as alleged by the complainant. It is further submitted that the policy provides grace period of 30 days from the due date of premiums payment under clause No. 9.7. It is specifically denied that the DLA was advised that he can pay the premium upto 60 days. That the death claim intimation was received on 06.12.2017. While assessing the claim, it was observed that the policy was in lapsed status as on the date of death i.e. 21.10.2017 of the DLA, due to non payment of renewal premium by the deceased for the due date 15.09.2017. Hence, the sum assured was not payable and the claim was repudiated and the complainant was intimated vide letter dated 22.12.2017. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 29.11.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on 11.01.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that at the time of death of deceased LA, the policy was in lapsed condition. But the contention of the complainant is that the due date of policy was 15.09.2017 and the premium was to be paid upto 15.10.2017. The life assured Raj Kumar during his lifetime had approached the office of the opposite party on 03.10.2017 for depositing the due premium amount, but the respondent officials had not accepted the same and asked the complainant to come after a week and again he approached in the office of opposite party on 12.10.2017. At that time the respondent officials told that online system of the respondent is not working properly and that he can deposit the premium upto 60 days. To prove her contention, complainant has placed on record affidavit of herself Ex.CW1/A and affidavit Ex.CW2/A of Sh. Deepak.
6. On the other hand, contention of opposite parties is that Renewal Premium Intimation letter Ex.R3 and Lapse Intimation letter were sent to the life assured but despite that he did not deposit the premium and had not revived the policy. The respondent officials also placed on record copy of visitor’s register Ex.R7 maintained by the respondent officials to prove that the deceased Raj Kumar did not approach the office of the opposite party on 12.10.2017.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that any postal receipt, speed post or acknowledgement of registered cover has not been place on record to prove that the alleged letters Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 were served to the deceased Raj Kumar. Moreover, as per Renewal Premium Intimation letter Ex.R3, premium amount was to be paid upto 15.10.2017 and accordingly the deceased approached the opposite parties on 03.10.2017 and 12.10.2017 but the same could not be deposited by the respondent officials due to fault in their online system. A bare perusal of this document Ex.R7 shows that the deceased Raj Kumar had visited the office of the opposite party on 03.10.2017 and 04.10.2017 and the same is mentioned in the alleged register. Regarding the visiting of LA on 12.10.2017, no entry is mentioned in the register the opposite party has not submitted all the pages w.e.f. 03.10.2017 to 15.10.2017. After the page dated 03.10.2017, there is page dated 12.10.2017. There is no serial number on the page and the same are not in continuation. Hence it cannot be believed that the deceased Raj Kumar did not visit the office of opposite party on 12.10.2017. Moreover, the fact of visiting the office of opposite party on 03.10.2017 and 04.10.2017 has been established from the document Ex.R7. The delay, if any, in depositing the premium was on the part of opposite parties itself and not on the part of deceased LA. Hence the repudiation of claim by the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per policy.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.250000/-(Rupees two lac fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization and also to pay an amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the L.Rs of deceased life assured Sh.Raj Kumar, in equal share within one month from the date of decision. It is also made clear that the amount after disbursement on account of minors(if any), should be deposited in any nationalized bank till their majority and will be paid to them on attaining the age of majority.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.06.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
