Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/60

Manpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Mittal

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :     201

Date of Institution: 19.07.2016

Date of Decision :  23.01.2017

 

1. Naminder Kaur, aged about 45 years, w/o Gurdeepinder Singh Sethi.

2. Navinder Singh s/o Gurdeepinder Singh Sethi. (son of complainant no.1)

Both residents of House No.B-XI-167, Street No. 6 (L), Dogar Basti, Faridkot.                                                                                       

....Complainant

Versus

1. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot-151203.

2. Manager Jeevan Parkash, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Model Town Road, PB No.82, Jallandhar-144001.

3. M.D. Jeevan Parkash, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Post Box No. 102, 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                          .............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Sandeep Handa, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Lakhwinder Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against  OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim of Rs. one lac with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant no. 1 and complainant no. 2 are the wife and son of Gurdeepinder Singh Sethi, who was an account holder of Life Insurance Policy No.131682682 dt 28.12.2002 for sum assured of Rs. one lac for fifteen years. It is further submitted that on 28.02.2004 husband of complainant went to bring his minor son from Baba Farid Public School on his motor cycle, but did not return back. All the relatives and friends of complainant tried to search her husband, but he was not found and then, DDR to this effect was got lodged in Police Station City Faridkot and after some time, it came to the knowledge that husband of complainant fell into Rajasthan Canal alongwith his motorcycle in order to save himself from stray animals and died in that accident. As dead body of her husband was not found from canal despite due search and complainant obtained the decree to declare the missing person dead if not heard from last 7 years from the ld Court of ACJ, (SD), Sh Vishesh, Faridkot on 12.02.2014 and vide this decree, her husband was declared dead and complainants were declared his legal heirs and they are entitled to get insurance claim of death of Gurdeepinder Singh as her husband died in road accident. Complainant made many requests to OPs to make payment of insurance claim to them but all in vain. Complainant also sent letter dt 31.03.2014 to OPs, but, vide vide letter dt 16.04.2014, OPs refused to make payment of genuine claim and repudiated their claim. Complainants also issued legal notice dt 15.02.2016 to OPs, but to no effect. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to them for which prayer is made for directing the OPs to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation and Rs 20,000/- as litigation expenses incurred by them besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.07.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                 On receipt of the notice, OPs appeared in the  Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try this complaint and it involves complex questions of law and facts requiring voluminous evidence and it can not be decided in this Forum and only Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the present matter. Moreover, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, complainant is not entitled to relief sought by her. It is averred that premium of policy in question was due to be paid on 28.12.2004 and has not been paid by complainant or by assured till date and said policy has been lapsed on 28.12.2004 due to non payment of insurance premium. It was the liability of complainant to keep the policy in question in force till the date of decree i.e up to 12.02.2014 and thus, complainants are not entitled to any relief on account of lapsed insurance policy and policy in question does not come under the Claim Concession at all and thus, complainants are not entitled to any relief as alleged and complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. It is further averred that as per rules and procedure of claims manual, the policy should have been kept in force upto date of decree from orders of the Hon’ble Courts for presuming the missing person as dead, but in present case, the insurance policy in question was in a lapsed condition on the date of decree and it does not come under claim concession and therefore, nothing is payable by OPs. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                          Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant no. 1 as Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-16 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                      To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of H S Gupta as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 5, but, did not conclude evidence despite availing several opportunities and therefore, vide order dated 3.01.2017, evidence of OPs was closed by order of this Forum.

 7                            We have heard the learned counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8                        The Ld Counsel for complainant contended that her husband purchased insurance policy from OPs for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a term of 15 years. It is further submitted that on 28.02.2004 husband of complainant went to bring his minor son from Baba Farid Public School on his motor cycle, but did not return back. All the relatives and friends of complainant tried to search her husband, but he was not found and then, DDR to this effect was got lodged in Police Station City Faridkot and after some time, it came to the knowledge that husband of complainant fell into Rajasthan Canal alongwith his motorcycle in order to save himself from stray animals and died in that accident. As dead body of her husband was not found from canal despite due search and complainant obtained the decree to declare the missing person dead if not heard from last 7 years from the ld Court of ACJ, (SD), Sh Vishesh, Faridkot on 12.02.2014 and vide this decree, her husband was declared dead and complainants were declared his legal heirs and they are entitled to get insurance claim of death of Gurdeepinder Singh as her husband died in road accident. Complainant made many requests to OPs to make payment of insurance claim to them but all in vain. Complainant also sent letter dt 31.03.2014 to OPs, but that also bore no fruit and they refused the claim of complainants vide letter dt 16.04.2014. Complainants also issued legal notice dt 16.02.2016 to OPs, but to no effect. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to them. They have prayed for accepting the present complaint. Ld counsel for complainant has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 16.

9                                    On the other hand, ld counsel for Ops argued before the Forum that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, complainants are not entitled to any relief sought by them. It is averred that premium of policy in question was due to be paid on 28.12.2004, which has not been paid by complainant or by assured till date and said policy has been lapsed on 28.12.2004 due to non payment of insurance premium. It was the liability of complainant to keep the policy in question in force till the date of decree i.e up to 12.02.2014 and thus, complainants are not entitled to any relief on account of lapsed insurance policy and policy in question does not come under the Claim Concession at all and thus, complainants are not entitled to any relief as alleged and complaint is liable to be dismissed. OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is further averred that as per rules and procedure of claims manual, the policy should have been kept in force upto date of decree from orders of the Hon’ble Courts for presuming the missing person as dead, but in present case, the insurance policy in question was in a lapsed condition on the date of decree and it does not come under claim concession and therefore, nothing is payable to complainants by them. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint. He has stressed on documents Ex OP-1 to 5.

10                         From the careful perusal of documents and after carefully going through the record placed on file, it is observed that the grievance of the complainant is that her husband was insured with OPs and he died while riding a motorcycle and after his death as per decree dated 12.02.2014, complainant and her son are nominees to receive the payment of insurance claim on account of death of said Gurdeepinder Singh. She has relied on documents Ex C-3, which is copy of insurance policy containing terms and conditions of insurance policy clearly showing the fact that her husband was insured with OPs. Ex C-4 and C-5 i.e the copies of DDR dt 28.02.2004 and dt 29.02.2004 and Ex C-7 copy of judgment/decree dated 12.02.2014 are sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the pleadings of complainant that her husband died by drowning in canal while saving himself from stray cattle on road and Ld court of the then Additional Civil Judge (Jr Division) gave declaration that her husband has been presumed to be dead and both complainant and her son are the legal heirs to inherit the estate and properties and for all kinds of benefits on behalf of deceased Gurdeepinder Singh. Authenticity of death certificate Ex C-14 can also not be denied. On the contrary, ld counsel for OPs argued that as per rules and procedure of Claim Manual and as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Policy in question should have been kept in force up to the date of decree i.e 12.02.2014 declaring the predecessor of complainants presuming the missing person as dead, but in this case, the complainant did not pay the premiums of the policy since 28.12.2004 neither by the assured nor by the complainants and since then, the policy is in lapsed conditions so, nothing is payable in this case on the basis of Policy in question. The policy in question does not come under the claim concession and hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed. On it, ld counsel for complainant argued that admittedly, the predecessor of complainants is missing since 28.02.2004 and he died in a road accident by drowning in a canal. It is duly proved from the DDRs Ex C-4 and C-5 and after that day, the complainants are not liable to pay insurance premiums to Ops. Since, 28.02.2004, said Gurdeepinder Singh has not contacted his family members and as men of ordinary prudence believe that he must have died on 28.02.2004. So, as Gurdeepinder Singh has died in February 2004, it was not necessary for him or his family members to pay the premiums of his life insurance policy to keep it alive. The OPs are therefore, not entitled to deny the claim for the full payment of sum assured on the ground that policy has lapsed on 28.12.2004. He has placed reliance on citation 2008 (4) CCC 698 titled as Bhanumati Dayaram Mhatre Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, wherein our Hon’ble Division Branch of Bombay High Court held that Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.107, 108, 3- Preponderance of probability – Son of petitioner missing since 13.11.1995 who was having insurance policy and he was declared dead by a declaratory decree of a competent Court – it was not necessary for him or his family members to pay premium of his life insurance policy to keep it alive – Insurance Company was therefore not entitled to deny the claim for full payment of sum assured on the ground that policy had lapsed in the year 1999 – Insurance company directed to pay not only the entire amount of sum assured together with accrued bonus with interest but also refund the premium paid from 1996 to 1999 with interest. Moreover, our Hon’ble Apex Court in C A No.2655/99 titled as LIC of India Vs Anuradha decided on 26.03.2004 observed that unfortunately some of the regions or States in India are insurgency afflicted. The life has become uncertain there. People live constantly under fear of death. Uncertainty of life has been accepted as a normal course of living. The Life Insurance Corporation, as a social welfare institution, more so when life insurance has been nationalized and the service is not available in private sector, should think of devising a policy available in insurgency afflicted regions which would take care of the assured and his family members in such areas. When the assured suddenly disappears or ceases to be traceable, may be the beneficiaries or nominees do not even know that the deceased had an insurance policy. They may not be aware if the insurance premiums have been paid or have remained not paid and what were the due dates and other obligations to be performed by the assured to keep the policy alive. Insurance policies with terms and conditions suited to the requirements of people inhabiting insurgency or militancy affected areas need to be devised and propagated.

11                               In view of aforementioned circumstances and arguments advanced by complainant counsel and in the light of documents placed on record, we are of considered opinion that complainants have successfully proved their case and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-to complainants as insured value on account of death of Gurdeepinder Singh husband of complainant no. 1 and father of complainant no. 2 alongwith interest @ 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.8000/-to complainants for harassment and mental agony suffered by them besides litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 23.01.2017

                               Member                           President

 (P Singla)                      (Ajit Aggarwal)