DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.463 of 25-10-2013
Decided on 06-02-2014
Magan Lal S/o Ruldu Ram S/o Piare Lal R/o Village Pakka Kalan, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited (Registered No.110), Head Office, 6th Floor, Peninsula Tower-1, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatan Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai, through its Managing Director.
2.Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited, having its office near Pukhraj Cinema, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
3.Sagan Lal S/o Ruldu Ram S/o Piare Lal R/o village Pakka Kalan, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.K.S Dabrikhana, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Sukhmander Singh, counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that his father Ruldu Ram was having an insurance policy bearing No.U111666744 of Rs.2 lac, issued on dated 23.2.2009 with the insurance premium of Rs.25,000/- per annum with the maturity date after 15 years. Ruldu Ram nominated his wife Raj Rani as his nominee. Raj Rani, the mother of the complainant died during the lifetime of Ruldu Ram and thereafter the complainant was nominated in the abovesaid policy. Ruldu Ram paid 3 premiums to the tune of Rs.25,000/- as per the conditions of the insurance policy. After that Ruldu Ram, father of the complainant died on dated 22.1.2013 and has left the complainant and his brother Sagan Lal, as his legal heirs, but as the complainant is the nominee in the abovesaid insurance policy as such he is entitled to receive the amount of Rs.2 lacs alongwith all other benefits, bonus and interest in the abovesaid policy and the opposite party No.3 has no objection to the same. After the death of life assured Ruldu Ram, the complainant lodged his claim at Bathinda and completed all the formalities and submitted all the documents well within time with the opposite party No.2, it assured him that his claim shall be cleared very soon. But the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not paid the claim to the complainant and postponed the matter on one or the other pretext. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him the claim of Rs.2 lacs alongwith bonus and interest besides cost and compensation.
2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that they have no objection to pay the death claim/insured amount of Rs.2 lacs as per the terms of the policy documents and proposal form dated 21.2.2009. Ruldu Ram, the father of the complainant filled the proposal form on dated 21.2.2009 to purchase the 'Tata AIG Life Invest Assure Flexi Plan'. Before the acceptance of the proposal form by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, the contents of the proposal form, illustrations and addendum form have been read and explained to the father of the complainant. On the basis of the information given in the proposal form, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 processed the said proposal form and thereafter issued the abovesaid policy to the life assured. The deceased life assured Ruldu Ram nominated his wife Raj Rani as his nominee. The nomination of Raj Rani has never been altered, changed substituted by any other name. Raj Rani, the nominee of the Ruldu Ram expired on dated 4.12.2009 before the death of Ruldu Ram. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further pleaded that as per Hindu Law besides the sons, daughters, mother, son of pre-deceased son, son of pre-deceased son of pre-deceased son, daughter of pre-deceased daughter and daughter of pre-deceased daughter of pre deceased daughter etc. are the legal heirs of the deceased. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have no objection if the complainant or any other legal heir of the deceased life assured Ruldu Ram, submits a succession certificate to enable them to disburse the insurance amount/sum assured of Ruldu Ram. As per the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy only the amount of Rs.2 lacs is payable by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further pleaded that the complainant may be directed to produce the succession certificate of the deceased life assured Ruldu Ram, so that they may pay the insured amount to the person entitled thereto.
3. The opposite party No.3 appeared in person before this Forum on dated 29.11.2013 and has suffered the statement to the effect that 'I have no objection if all payment be given to my brother Sh.Magan Lal of this complaint against policy No.U111666744 of my father'.
After suffering the statement on dated 29.11.2013, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.3, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against it on dated 28.1.2014.
4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. The submission of the complainant is that his father Ruldu Ram had purchased one insurance policy bearing No.U111666744 of Rs.2 lac, issued on dated 23.2.2009 with the insurance premium of Rs.25,000/- per annum with the maturity date after 15 years. Ruldu Ram nominated his wife Raj Rani as his nominee. Raj Rani died during the lifetime of Ruldu Ram on dated 4.12.2009 and her death certificate is produced on file i.e. Ex.C6. Ruldu Ram died on dated 22.1.2013 before the maturity of the abovesaid policy. After the death of his father Ruldu Ram, the complainant has lodged the claim with the opposite parties claiming that except the complainant and the opposite party No.3, there is no other legal heir of Ruldu Ram. As per the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 agreed to pay the claim to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, but after the death of Ruldu Ram, the complainant approached the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, but they did not pay him any claim amount. The complainant further submitted that the concerned documents that have been deposited with the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 on dated 28.2.2013 were wrongly mentioned as 28.2.2012.
7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is that the life assured Ruldu Ram purchased the insurance policy bearing No.U111666744 and nominated his wife Raj Rani as his nominee. Raj Rani, the nominee of the Ruldu Ram expired on dated 4.12.2009 before the death of Ruldu Ram. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that they are ready to pay the claimed amount of Rs.2 lacs, in case the complainant submits the succession certificate/legal heir certificate of the deceased life assured Ruldu Ram to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
8. In his complaint the complainant submitted that after the death of Raj Rani, the life assured Ruldu Ram nominated him as his nominee, but there is no document on file to prove that life assured has ever been appointed the complainant as his nominee in the abovesaid policy. Moreover if for argument sake it is believed that he was nominated in the abovesaid policy, in that case also nominee is the custodian of the amount payable to all the legal heirs. Ruldu Ram died on 22.1.2013 and Raj Rani died on 4.12.2009. As per the version of the complainant, he and Sagan Lal are the only legal heirs of the life assured Ruldu Ram and there is no other legal heir except them of deceased life assured Ruldu Ram, whereas the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 was demanding the legal heir certificate/succession certificate to confirm that there are only two legal heirs of the life assured Ruldu Ram, but the complainant has failed to furnish the legal heir certificate/succession certificate. However, being the legal heir of Ruldu Ram, the complainant is entitled for the sum assured in proportionate if any other legal heir than Shagan Lal come as better claimant. Moreover Sagan Lal has suffered the statement before this Forum to the effect that he has no objection if the entire amount shall be paid to his brother Magan Lal, the complainant against the policy No.U111666744 of his father.
9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is accepted without any order as to cost against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay the sum assured amount of Rs.2 lacs to the complainant. At the same time the complainant is directed to furnish the indemnity bond with the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to the effect that in case any better claimant(s)/legal heir(s) will claim the insured amount, then he will liable to pay the same to that claimant(s)/legal heir(s) in equal share after keeping his own share. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from furnishing of the indemnity bond by the complainant.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
06-02-2014
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
