Dated: 07.02.2024

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Order

1. This appeal by O.Ps (Branch Manager, LIC of India, Industrial area, Katihar and two others) is directed against the order dated 11.10.2019 passed by District Consumer Forum, Katihar in CC No. 52 of 2017 by which the complaint was allowed and the appellants were ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- to the respondent-complainant on account of deficiency in service by them arisen due to non payment of double benefit amount in the four insurance policies detailed herein after, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the impugned order.
2. The case of complainant is that her husband Mukesh Kumar Vishwas had taken the following life insurance policies from appellant no. 1- Policy no. 526288083 for Rs. 5,00,000/- Policy no. 525406473 for Rs. 5,00,000/- & Policy no. 526767686 for Rs. 5,00,000/-, Policy no. 524054417 for Rs. 2,50,000/- they were all under double benefit scheme which means that in case of death due to accident of the insured person the insurance company shall pay double of the insured amount to the nominee of the policy holder. She is the sole nominee in the aforesaid policies. Her husband, the insured person, died at the spot in a road accident on 29.07.2015 at Khempur for which Kadwa PS case no. 108 of 2015 was registered on the same day under section 302 IPC on the fard bayan of Bibhas Kumar Vishwas, son of the deceased who had suspected that it was a case of murder and after committing the murder culprits had kept the dead body on the road. Postmortem of the dead body was done and the police took up investigation. On investigation the I.O. of the case came to the conclusion that it was a case of road accident and death was cause due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries sustained in the accident. So, he submitted charge sheet in the case under sections 279 and 304 (A) IPC. It is the further case of the complainant that she filed claim in the office of appellant  no. 1 in respect of each policy but the appellants paid to her the sum assured only in respect of each policy. Then she approached them and asked to pay her double amount in respect of each policy as each policy was under double benefit scheme, but they declined to pay on that scale. So, she filed the complaint.
3. The appellants-Ops appeared, filed a written statement and contested the case. They have stated in their written statement besides other facts which are not needed to be mentioned here that death of the insured person had not taken place in any road accident. So, they did not give double of the assured amount to the complainant in respect of any policy. Under this circumstance the complaint should have been dismissed.
4. In the memo of appeal they have stated that the District Forum has wrongly allowed the complaint. Therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant no one appears on behalf of respondent inspite of service of registered notice. Perused the record including the Xerox copies of documents filed by appellant and the evidence given on affidavit.
6. There are strong documentary evidences on behalf of the complainant to prove that the death of her husband had taken place in a road accident such as – FIR, Charge sheet of the police case & postmortem report of deceased. The fard bayan of the son of the deceased was based on mere suspicion of murder which came out to be untrue during police investigation. As against that there is no cogent evidence on behalf of the appellant-Ops to revert it. Under such circumstance the ground taken by appellants for non payment of the amount of double benefit to the respondent-complainant is not at all acceptable and this act of the appellants false definitely in the category of deficiency in service on their part.
7. On the basis foregoing discussions we do not find any factual or legal defect in the impugned order. We find and hold further that the appeal is devoid of any merit.
8. For the reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed on contest with Rs. 15,000/- cost of litigation payable by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days of this order failing which this amount shall have to be paid 7% interest thereon till the date of actual payment.

                                       Raj Kumar Pandey                                                                    Miss Gita Verma

                                             (Member)                                                                            (Judicial Member)

Md. Fariduzzama