BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
C.C.No.274/2016.
Date of Instt.: 26.10.2016.
Date of Decision:20.04.2018.
Naresh Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Sh.Mahaveer, resident of village Kalana, Prem Nagar, Kalana, Tehsil Bhadra & District Hanumangarh.
..Complainant.
Versus
1.SBI Life Insurance Co. Near State Bank of India, Sirsa Road, Fatehabad through its owner.
2.SBI Life Insurance Co. having its Registered Office Natraj, M.V. Road & Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri East, Mumbai through its Managing Director.
..Respondents/OPs.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.M.K.Khurana, Member.
Argued by: Sh.Pankaj Bansal, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh.Rohtash Bishnoi, Adv. for the OPs.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he is a permanent resident of village Kalana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. It is further submitted that the brother of the complainant namely Kuldeep Kumar purchased a life insurance policy from OPs bearing No.56058392604. The complainant was the nominee under the aforesaid policy and the sum assured of the policy was Rs.10 lacs. Therefore Sh.Kuldeep Kumar was the consumer of the OPs and after his death the complainant is consumer of the OPs.
2. Sh.Kuldeep Kumar kept on making the payment of installments to the OPs regularly without any default. However Sh.Kuldeep Kumar died on 30.10.2013 and as such as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant being nominee has become entitled to the sum assured of Rs.10 lacs under the said policy. It is further submitted that after death of Deceased Life Assured (hereinafter to be referred as DLA) the complainant being nominee of the deceased requested the OP for complying with the terms and conditions of the policy and to make payment of the sum assured. On the request of the complainant, the OPs asked him to submit some requisite documents i.e. death certificate, original policy and other connected documents and assured him that after submissions of the above said documents the sum assured was to be released in his favour. As desired by the OPs, the complainant submitted all the documents with the OPs but the complainant did not receive any response from the side of OPs and the Ops are avoiding the release of the payment on one pretext or the other and till date the sum assured has not been released to him.
3. In the prayer, the complainant has submitted that the present complaint may be accepted and the OPs may kindly be directed for making a payment of Rs.10 lacs along-with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of unnecessary harassment and humiliation etc. suffered by him. Hence, the present complaint.
4. On being served the OPs appeared through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a joint written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, concealment of material facts and locus-standi etc.; have been raised.
5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that Sh.Kuldeep Kumar DLA was the holder of policy bearing No. 56058392604 with the date of commencement of policy as 08.10.2013 for a basic sum assured of Rs.10 lacs. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar DLA had nominated the complainant as nominee under the policy and relationship was mentioned as brother in the proposal form under question No.8.
6. It is further submitted that death claim intimation was received from complainant on 21.08.2015. However during the process of settlement of claim the OPs received application from Mrs.Manju, claiming herself to be the wife of DLA and thus Mrs.Manju also claimed the amount in dispute under the policy. As the title under the policy was disputed therefore the OPs called for Succession Certificate from the Competent Court of Law from the complainant and Mrs.Manju to prove their title under the policy.
7. It is further submitted that after assessment of the claim, the claim was admitted for the Basic Sum Assured of Rs.10 lacs. Since, there was a rival claim under the policy, the OPs kept the payment under abeyance and sent letters to both the complainant and Mrs.Manju to prove their title under the policy. Since, the nomination under the policy is challenged as such the OPs kept the payment in abeyance. The present matter is a dispute between the complainant and Mrs.Manju. The OPs are willing to pay the claim amount of Rs.10 lacs under the policy to the legal heirs. The OPs has asked the complainant to prove his title under the policy and had called for the Succession Certificate from the Competent Court of Law. However instead of complying with the said requirements the complainant has filed the present complaint. Therefore the present is pre-mature and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. In evidence, the complainant placed on record his affidavit as Annexure CW1 wherein the averments made in the complaint have been re-affirmed. The counsel for the complainant also placed on record the documents as Annexures C1 to C4. On the other hand, Mrs.Dhania placed on record her affidavit as Annexure F in evidence on behalf of OPs. The OPs also placed in evidence the documents Annexure A to Annexure E and closed the evidence.
9. During the proceedings Mrs.Manju wife of Satya Narayan filed an application dated 02.11.2017 for impleading her as complainant in the present complaint. The complainant resisted the above application by filing a reply. After hearing the parties, the said application for impleading Mrs.Manju as complainant in the present complaint was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2017.
10. Thereafter the complainant filed an application dated 07.03.2018 for permission to amend the complaint and supporting affidavit of the complainant filed in evidence by correcting the relation of the complainant with the deceased life assured as brother in para no.2 and 4 and correcting the name of the deceased as Kuldeep Kumar in place of Gulab Chand recorded in the para No.5 of the complaint. After hearing both the parties the said application of the complainant was allowed by this Forum in the interest of justice vide separate order dated 10.04.2018.
11. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is not disputed that late Sh.Kuldeep Kumar had purchased a life insurance policy from the OPs for a sum assured of Rs.10 lacs and the date of commencement of the policy was 08.10.2013. It is also not disputed that Naresh Kumar complainant has been nominated as nominee of the life assured in the proposal form. Relation of the nominee with the life assured has been mentioned as brother in the proposal form. It is also not disputed that the life assured died on 30.10.2013 during the subsistence of the policy. It is also not disputed that after assessment of the claim of the complainant the same was admitted by the OPs for the basic sum assured of Rs.10 lacs. However the OPs have declined to make payment of the claim to the complainant on the ground that during process of the settlement of the claim an application was received by the OPs from Ms. Manju claiming to be wife of the DLA and she also claimed the insured amount being wife of the DLA. Therefore the insurance claim became disputed. So the OPs asked both the claimants for succession certificate from the competent Court.
12. It is also not disputed that Smt.Manju or any other person has not produced any succession certificate before the OPs for receiving the amount in dispute nor any injunction has been produced by Smt.Manju against making payment of the impugned amount to the complainant. So keeping in view the aforesaid facts the prime question involved in the case in hand for decision by this Forum is as to whether the complainant is entitled to receive the insurance claim being nominee of the DLA. Keeping in view all the facts as discussed above we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are bound to pay insured value to the nominee i.e. complainant. The insurance company cannot determine or held as to who are the legal heirs of the deceased. The insurance company has to release the insured value of the policy to the nominee in accordance with the terms of the policy. So far as the insurance company is concerned its obligation is only to the nominee and once payment is made its responsibility under the policy would lease and it is not answerable to any of the legal representatives. Moreover a nominee under an insurance policy need not obtain a succession certificate. In view of the provisions of Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 the insurance company is under a statutory obligation to pay the benefits under the policy to the complainant who is admittedly nominated by the deceased policy holder to receive the benefits after his death. The legal heirs thereafter can recover/ claim the benefits from the nominee in accordance with law. The judgments cited as 2011 AIR (Calcutta) Page 211, 2001 AIR (Karnataka) 453, 2007 (2) CPJ 389, 2005(3) CLT 16 (Punjab) are relied upon in support of our findings.
13. Resultantly, the present complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed for making payment of the insured value of the policy amounting to Rs.10 lacs along-with interest @ 7% from the date of filing the present complaint till realization and Rs.3000/- (Rs.Three Thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of present order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM. Dt.20.04.2018
(Raghbir Singh)
President
(M.K.Khurana) District Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Fourm,Fatehabad
