Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/513/2015

Life Ins.Corp. of India through Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Anju Devi w/o Late Gokul Prasad Sonkariya - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.Sharma

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 513 /2015

 

Life Insurance Corporation of India through Manager, Micro Insurance Department,Bhawani Singh Road,C-Scheme,Jaipur.

Vs.

Smt.Anju Devi r/o Regaron Ka Mohalla, Via Post Dhanota Tehsil Chomu Distt. Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 22.3.2016

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr..J.P.Sharma counsel for the appellant

Mr.Amit Sikaria counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

2

 

learned DCF, Jaipur 3^rd dated 24.3.2015

 

The contention of the appellant is that there is no dispute about the fact that three policies were issued to the respondent and premium has been charged but two policies were issued under Plan No. 182 and maximum life cover available to individual under the scheme was for Rs. 30,000/- whereas the policy has been issued in derogation of the scheme. Further it has been submitted that policies were issued on 30.6.2012 and insured died on the same day and there was no occasion with the appellant to correct the mistake hence, it could not be informed to the insured about the cancellation of the insurance policy. Hence, under the policy for sum assured of Rs.14,400/- nothing could be paid and it was canceled.

 

Further contention is that accident benefit has been allowed but no documents were submitted by the respondent before the company hence, the Forum below should have ordered for the submission of documents and claim could be considered by the company itself. Further it has been submitted that the rate of interest is on higher side as prevalent bank rate is only 9%. It has also been contended that when interest is awarded, no compensation for mental agony should have been

3

 

awarded. Hence, the claim should be amended accordingly.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that money has been paid with delay and when premium has been charged for the policy of sum assured of Rs. 14,400/-, it cannot be canceled after the death of the insured. The respondent suffered mental agony and compensation has rightly been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that three policies have been issued to the respondent. Two policies were issued under Plan No. 182. The sum assured for the same was Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 14,400/-.

 

It is also not in dispute that amount due under the policy of Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- has been paid to the respondent. As regard the policy having sum assured of Rs.14,400/- the contention of the appellant seems to be sound that maximum life cover available to individual under the policy was Rs. 30,000/- and when already the policy having sum assured of Rs.18,000/- has been honoured, it was not

4

 

possible for the appellant to honour another policy and it also seems true that the insured died on the same day and the appellant was not having any time for rectification and the appellant was justified in refund of premium of Rs.100/- and cancellation of insurance policy for Rs. 14,400/- was justified and it cannot be termed as deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. It was simply the bonafide mistake for which it cannot be penalized and the contention of the appellant is acceptable.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that accident benefit has not been allowed to the respondent as relevant documents i.e. First Information Report, Postmortem report etc. have not been submitted. It is true that with the claim form these documents have not been annexed but before the Forum below these documents have been submitted and the respondent has also intimated the appellant vide notice Ex. 17 dated 10.10.2012 that all documents i.e. death certificate, First Information Report, Postmortem report are submitted to the company. Same has been pleaded in the complaint which is not specifically denied by the appellant. Hence, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable that accident benefit could not be

 

5

 

allowed to the respondent as the relevant documents have not been furnished.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that interest rate which has been allowed is on higher side which seems sound. The maximum interest which is allowable by the bank are 9% hence, the interest rate should have been amended accordingly.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that when interest has been awarded, no compensation should have been allowed and reliance has rightly been placed on II (2006) CPJ 339 Oriental Insurance Company Vs. B.Ramareddy, III (2006) CPJ 389 (NC) National Insurance Co. Vs. Pyaresahed S.Shaikh and (2000) NCJ (SC) 386 Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Union of India. In Pyaresahed S.Shaikh and B.Ramareddy (supra) the Hon'ble National Commission has clearly held that when interest is allowed, there is no justification for awarding compensation towards mental agony. It amounts to double relief and should have not been allowed. Hence, is appeal is liable to be allowed partially.

 

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. The respondent is entitled for sum assured as well as accidental

6

 

benefit under the policies for the sum assured of Rs.18,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,36,000/-. Further more he is also entitled 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the realization of the amount. Rs. 1 lakh which has been awarded as compensation towards mental agony is set aside but the complainant-respondent is entitled for Rs. 3000/- as cost of proceedings. The appellant is ordered to honour the claim within one month from today.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

nm