1. The instant appeal is against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yavatmal passed on 23/5/2007 in complaint No.40/2007 granting the complaint and directing the OP No.1 & 3 to individually or severally give the life insurance coverage of Rs.50000/- to complainants with acquired bonus upon it from 1/4/2004 to the day of actual payment with interest @ 9%. In case of failure, to pay the claim from 1/4/2004 with a penal interest of Rs.12% p.a. till the date of actual payment. Further, directed OP No.1 & 3 to give individually or severally Rs.5000/- for mental harassment and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the date of order to the complainants.
2. The brief facts leading to above order are that the complainant Smt.Sarala Ganpat @ Nilesh Watkar, R/o Yavatmal with her two minor childrens namely Vaibhav and Abhishek, the legal heirs of Ganpat Watkar filed a complaint against OP No.1 Sr.Branch Manager, Life Line Multi Servicing Pvt.Ltd. Pune, OP No.2 Sr.Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ahmednagar and OP No.3 Sr.Branch Manager, Birla Sunlife Insurance Co. Andheri East, Mumbai.
3. The complainant No.1 complained that she is the mother of the remaining two complainants and the wife of deceased Ganpat @ Nilesh Watkar. Her husband took a policy from one agent Mandavkar of OP No.1 by paying Rs.1500/-. The policy was of Rs.50000/- and was operative for a period from 14/10/2002 to 13/10/2003. While taking the policy, the aforesaid agent Bhupendra Mandavkar said that the policy is a triple risk cover policy and the natural death is also covered under it.
4. The complainant No.1 further submitted that after taking the policy, her husband Ganpat died on 23/7/2003. Hence the aforesaid agent Bhupendra Mandavkar collected all required papers and sent a claim to the Claim Officer of OP No.1.
5. In spite of repeated enquiries by the complainant No.1 from the office of the OP No.1 and with one Rajan Daudatkar, the officer of the OP No.1, she did not get any response, and, therefore, she filed the complaint before the Forum against OP No.1, OP No.2 & OP No.3 on 3/2/2007.
6. The complainant requested for the claim of the policy of Rs.50000/- with penal interest upon it @ 12% from 7/11/2003 with all the accrued bonus upon it. The complainants also requested for Rs.20000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.
7. The Forum issued the notices. The notice was received by OP No.1 at Pune address but did not appear before the Forum. Hence the order was declared ex-parte against OP No.1.
8. The OP No.2 appeared and filed the written version on affidavit. OP No.2 denied the claim raised by the complainant and also denied that OP No.1 is an agent of OP No.2. It also denied its name on the policy paper and the deposition of Rs.1500/- for a policy of Rs.50000/- with the agent Bhupendra Mandavkar. OP No.2 submitted that the policy was “JPA policy” in which the claim was due only in case of accidental death, but as the death of the husband of the complainant No.1 was due to sickness, the claim is not payable.
9. The OP No.3 appeared and through written version on affidavit submitted that they have never received the claim of the death of the husband of the complainant No.1 till the receipt of the notice of the complaint i.e. till 2007. The OP No.3 denied that the OP No.1 has ever submitted the claim to them.  The OP No.3 denied the OP No.1 to be their agent. The OP No.3 submitted that it is a registered company which accepts the claim of group life insurance schemes. When an individual takes a policy, he has to submit the declaration of good health. In case of group insurance, it is the Group Administrator who provides the proposal for the group in which the individual information is not required. However, every member in the group has to submit Declaration of good health (for short DCH). If wrong or false information is supplied in the form, then the policy cover does not remain payable. The OP No.3 provides Certificate of insurance (for short COI) to all the members as an evidence of member of the insured group.
10. The OP No.3 submitted that they never received the declaration of good health in case of the husband of the complainant and also no claim from OP No.1 which should be submitted to them in a span of one month from the death. The OP No.3 submitted that the OP No.1 had taken a group insurance policy from it (OP No.3) in 2003. The condition of the policy was that the OP No.1 would be the policy holder who was supposed to give the proper claim of the death of the member in a span of 30 days from the death of the insured. The clause No.6 of the policy also provided that the members provide evidence of good health i.e. DCH through the group policy holder. Therefore it was the duty of the OP No.1 to submit the claim in a span of 30 days from the death of the present group member i.e. husband of the complainant No.1 from 27^th of July,2003. However, the OP No.1 neither submitted the claim nor intimated about the death and hence violated the conditions and terms of the policy by not submitting the claim during the last three years.
11. The OP No.3 also submitted that they had informed OP No.1 vide Email of April,2002 that the application for insurance should contain a duly signed DCH of the members which is a sole basis for the insurance company to assess the risk on the life of the members. The OP No.1 did not comply the term as was put before them. The OP No.3 further submitted that the said policy under JPA (Janata Personal Accident Policy Scheme) covers only accidental losses and not the natural death.
12. Thus, OP No.3 submitted that the OP No.1 never submitted the claim of the death of the husband of the complainant No.1. OP No.1 also violated the terms of the policy and thus the OP No.3 cannot be saddled with the claim of the death  in all fairness. Also, the claim is beyond the limits set for raising the claim. The death being out of sickness, is not covered by the policy, and thus requested to dismiss the complaint against OP No.3.
13. The Forum considered the contentions, material and papers placed before it by the complainant and the Ops. The Forum held that the OP No.2 being an insurance company covering accidental death, absolved it from the responsibility.
14. The Forum further held that OP No.1 had taken the policy from OP No.3 and, therefore, the OP No.1 was an agent of OP No.3. The relations between them about the various submissions of DGH etc. is their internal performance. It was the duty of OP No.1 to raise the claim before OP No.3. The Forum leveling their conclusion on the claim, submitted by the complainants, the affidavit of the agent of OP No.1, one Bhupendra Mandavkar, held that OP No.1 is an agent of OP No.3. Thus the OP No.3 is responsible for any deficiency of OP No.1. Thus, holding the correspondence between OP No.1 and OP No.3 to be their internal affair, held that the claim being pending with OP No.1, did not get barred by the limitation. The Forum also held the cited case law by the OP No.3 to be not applicable to the case and held the claim to be in limitation and held OP No.1 & 3 individually and severally responsible. Thus, the Forum passed the order as above.
15. Aggrieved against the order, the OP No.3 filed appeal before us and hence is being referred as appellant hereinafter. The original complainant 1,2 & 3 are being referred as respondent Nos.1,2 & 3. The original OP No.1 is being referred as respondent No.4 and the original OP No.2 is being referred as respondent No.5 for brevity henceforth.
16. The appellant submitted that the respondent No.4 is not their agent, but was an agent of the respondent Nos.1,2 & 3/original complainants. The respondent No.4 never submitted the claim to appellant after the death of Ganpat, the husband of Resp.No.1, on July,27,2003 till 2007. The appellant never received the DGH (declaration of good health) from the respondent No.4. The appellant submitted that after so many years from the death, the claim is time barred by limitation as is held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Askaran Bajaj Vs.LIC reported in I (2007) CPJ 63 (NC). The appellant claimed the claim to be barred vide Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act.
17. The appellant further submitted that as per the policy issued by the appellant to the respondent No.4, would show that the respondent No.4 is a policy holder and not an agent of the appellant. The policy issued stipulated that the policy holder i.e. respondent No.4 will give a written notice and a proof of claim within 30 days from the cause of claim to the appellant. Appellant further submitted that it stipulated no legal action against the appellant after a lapse of one year from the cause of claim.
18. The appellant further submitted that the member to be admitted to the insured group is required to give a declaration of good health. It was specifically informed to the respondent No.4 in the year 2002 itself, however, no such declaration was either taken from the husband of the respondent No.1 or was sent to the appellant.
19. Thus, the appellant vehemently submitted that the Forum failed to appreciate the relation, between appellant and respondent No.4 and barring of claim by the period of limitation and passed the order without proper appreciation of the facts.
20. The respondent No.1 to 3 appeared after notice and filed their say in Marathi stating therein that the agent of respondent No.4 namely Mr. Bhupendra Krishnarao Mandavkar had taken Rs.1500/- and given the policy, and had assured the policy to be of triple benefit and had assured that it would cover the natural death also and that the agent had submitted the proposal of claim with all documents. Thus respondent Nos.1 to 3 claimed the order of the Forum to be appropriate and fact based.
21. The respondent No.4 filed their written notes of arguments before us and claimed that the respondent No.1 is a corporate agent and had issued the Janata Personal Accident Policy (for short JPA) in favour of the husband of the complainant No.1 on behalf of appellant and respondent No.5. He further claimed that the impugned policy was only for accidental death and hence the claim of respondent No.1 to 3 does not survive against respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 claimed that as per the definition of membership included in the policy, issued by the appellant, the member is the one who is issued with the life line card by the appellant.Thus, in view of the definition, respondent No.4 has no relation with the policy issued by the appellant. The respondent No.4 further submitted that the submission of declaration of good health is a responsibility between the policy holder i.e. Ganpat and appellant.
22. The respondent No.4, therefore submitted that as per the card provided by it, it had provided the insurance on behalf of appellant and respondent No.5 as a corporate agent of them and is therefore stands indemnified for their deficiency. The respondent No.4 cited a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of A.K.K.Nambiar Vs.Union Government and Ors. reported in AIR 1970 SC 652 and submitted that the Forum wrongly held the respondent No.4 to be responsible for the claim and saddled it upon him.
23. It is seen that the above judgment issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in respect of all india service (Appeal & discipline Rules) and does not appear to have any relation with the issue involved in present case. However, the respondent No.4 further submitted that the Forum did not properly serve the notice and did not give proper opportunity to the respondent No.4 to appear before the Forum to adduce evidence, and present their case properly. Thus, the respondent No.4 requested to dismiss the complaint and appeal against respondent No.4 or alternatively remand it back to the Forum for appropriate trial and opportunity.
24. However, while submitting the written notes of arguments, the respondent No.4 has submitted the original statement of the respondent No.1 and a list of the members included in the policy by the respondent No.4 in which the name of the deceased Ganpat appears at No.2. The list does not have any signature. The certificate of insurance of Janata Personal Accident Policy submitted by the respondent No.4 does not have the name of the appellant and has the signatures of respondent No.4 and respondent No.5. This clearly indicates that the impugned policy was issued by Respondent No.4 only and had received the papers of claim also from the respondent No.1 to 3 well in time.
25. The respondent No.5 in appeal, has raised objections stating therein that the policy was for an eventuality of accidental death and the impugned death being out of sickness, was not covered by them and was appropriately held so by the Forum which had absolved them of the responsibility which was correct, fact based. Thus requested to maintain the Forum order.
26. We considered the above contentions as referred above in detail. We perused the papers submitted by the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Forum and also the policy and life card issued by respondent No.4. The entire proceedings before the Forum are conducted properly and we find no reason to remand the case back for any reason.
27. The facts clearly show that the respondent No.4 (original OP No.1) did not satisfy the terms and conditions of the policy issued to him by the appellant. The respondent No.4 received the premium amount and the claim in time. The respondent No.4 was the policy holder of appellant and was responsible to raise the claim and provide the benefit to the group members.
28. The appellant had provided the policy and had explained the terms to respondent No.4 properly and appropriately. Appellant never received the claim till the receipt of notice of the complaint from the Forum. Thus, the claim stands barred as regards appellant. Thus, the conclusion of the Forum as regards the appellant to be responsible to pay the claim appears to be standing on erroneous reasoning. Which thus, needs correction. The appellant in view of the reasons discussed above and the facts brought on the paper, deserves to be absolved from the responsibility saddled upon him by the Forum.
29. Thus, we decide to appropriately modify the order of the Forum by accepting the appeal. We also consider the peculiar nature of the case and decide to pass an order without cost. Thus, we pass the order as below..

ORDER

1. The appeal is partly allowed.
2. The direction given under clause Nos.1,2,4 & 5 of the impugned order to the appellant/original O.P.No.3 to pay Rs.50,000/- towards sum assured with interest and Rs.5000/- as compensation towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.1000/- towards costs of complaint to the original complainants/respondent Nos.1,2 & 3 is set aside.
3. Rest of the order passed against respondent No.4/original O.P.No.1 stands confirmed.
4. No order as to the cost.
5. The copies of the order be provided to all the parties at the earliest.
6. The member copies, be returned to the appellant.