Mr. SHANTANU KUMAR DASH, PRESIDENT

                         The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Khaparapada, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the Chief Manager, LIC of India, Balasore Branch and O.P No.3 is the Branch Manager, LIC of India, Balasore Branch.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant No.1 is the wife of the deceased Madhu Singh and the Complainant No.2 is the mother of the deceased. The deceased Madhu Singh was working as handing labourer in Food storage depot of F.C.I, Jaleswar under the supervision of the O.P No.1. During tenure of service, the deceased had three L.I.C policies bearing Nos.(1) 583665658, (2) 583619323 and (3) 583665879 with sum assured of Rs.2.00 Lacs (Rupees Two lacs) only, Rs.0.60 Lacs (Rupees Sixty thousand) only and Rs.1.00 Lakh (Rupees one lakh) only commencing on 24.02.2003, 28.03.2003 and 15.06.2003 respectively. The Complainant No.1 was the nominee for Policy No.1 and 3 and the Complainant No.2 was the nominee for Policy No.2. All these three Policies were made under salary savings scheme and the premiums were paid on deduction from his salary as per standing instructions given by him and accordingly, premium was deducted from the salary of the deceased every month. But, the deceased suffered from Jaundice and died on 19.01.2013 when he was in service. After death of her husband, the Complainant No.1 applied to O.P No.2 and 3 for payment of insurance amount along with death benefit. But, the O.P No.1 and 2 informed the Complainant about the gap in payment of premium of all three above said policies such as no deduction was made from the salary of the deceased though there was standing instruction from the side of deceased to O.P No.1 to deduct premium from salary. The O.P No.2 and 3 should have intimated to the deceased in writing for payment of premium for the gap period or should have written to O.P No.1 in the matter under copy to the deceased. Such type of activities made by the O.Ps caused financial loss to the Complainant, so the O.Ps are liable to compensate the loss. The Complainants are entitled to get death claim, bonus along with interest in respect of above said policies as per schedule of claim to the extent of Rs.2,78,126/- (Rupees Two lacs seventy eight thousand one hundred twenty six) only. The Complainant has prayed for payment of claim amount (death benefit) as per schedule along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.   

                    3. Written version filed by the O.P No.1 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that Late Madhu Sing was working as a handling labourer under FCI, he was most irregular in his duty and as a labourer, he was being paid only for the period when he worked and he was not entitled for the payment when did not attend his duty; as such Late Madhu Sing was not a regular worker under FCI. It is not correct to say that the policies of Late Madhusudan Singh were under salary savings scheme and this O.P was under no obligation to pay the premium to the LIC after deducting the same from his salary. It is true that at times, the premiums under the LIC policies were deducted from the remuneration of Late Madhusudan Sing and were being paid to the LIC. But, the period in which he remained absent, the L.I.C premiums could not be paid and in such cases, the insured was to make such payment. The deceased Madhusudan Singh having suffered from Jaundice died on 19.01.2013 while he was in service and that the Complainants were informed by the authorities of LIC that there were no deductions from the salary of Late Madhu Singh for some months and there were gaps in the payments of premiums, for which their claim could not be settled are false. It is also not true that all the three policies were in force when Late Madhusudan Singh was alive. The Predecessors of the Complainant did not work on several months and he was not entitled for any salary/ remuneration on this basis of the rule “no work, no pay” and in such circumstances, this O.P was not in a position to deduct any amount from the salary of Late Madhu Singh as no payment was due to him. In such circumstances, the policy holder was required to pay the LIC premiums from his own funds personally. The predecessor of the Complainant was a labourer and he was entitled for his payment for the works which he actually did and he was not entitled for any monthly salary. As such, the claim of the Complainant that there were standing instructions by Late Madhusudan Singh that the LIC premiums would be collected from his salary for payment of this insurer is not true and correct. Therefore, the complaint of the Complainant is vexatious in nature and the same is liable to be rejected.     

                    4. Written version filed by the O.Ps No.2 and 3 through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, limitation as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps No.2 and 3 have further admitted that the life assured Madhu Singh had made three LIC policies with the respective nominees. But, it is the responsibility of the life assured to make arrangements for remittance of premium directly to the Corporation to prevent his policy from lapsing on account of non-payment of premium on his policy for reasons beyond the control. The copy of the authorization letter signed by the deceased life assured is attached herewith. As per record, the premium under the policies of the deceased life assured were not deducted from the salary of the life assured even if he was in service and the premium were deducted from the salary of the life assured up to and including 04/10 with discrete gaps of 05/2007, 05 & 06/2008, 12/2008, 06 & 07/2009, 10/2009, 12/2009, 01 & 02/2010. As per status report under three policies No. 583619323, 583665879 and 583665658, there are 10 numbers of gap under two polices and 9 numbers of gap under 1 policy. Apart from this, premiums were not deducted from 05/2010 till death of the life assured. Due to non-payment of premiums, policy came to lapsed condition. As per records available with the O.P reveals that the death of life assured happened on 19/01/2013 and the cause of death being suicide instead of Jaundice as mentioned by the Complainant. Thus, the O.Ps have settled the death claim on receipt of the death intimation from the Nominees. Since the Complainant has already received the death claim proceeds under the policies of the deceased life assured, therefore the Complainant is legally stopped to file the claim since the discharge voucher has been duly executed by the Complainant to the full and final satisfaction of the claim and the Complainant after received the same, has filed the dispute case for further payment over and above the amount received. Thus, the complaint petition filed by the Complainants is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) Whether this Consumer case is barred by law of limitation ?

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that all the three policies were made under salary savings scheme and the premiums were paid on deduction from his salary as per standing instructions given by him. The policy holder died due to Jaundice on 19.01.2013 while he was in service. The O.P No.2 and 3 should have intimated the deceased in writing for payment of premium for the gap period or should have written to O.P No.1 in this matter under copy to the deceased. So, the activities made by the O.Ps caused financial loss to the Complainants, for which they have filed this case praying for payment of entire death claim amount along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.1 that the policy holder did not work for several months though he was a labourer under him and he was most irregular in his duty. He was entitled for salary/ remuneration on the basis of no work no pay. So, the O.P No.1 was not in a position to deduct any amount from his salary and no payment was due to him. So, in this circumstances, the policy holder required to pay premium from his own funds personally, but he failed to do so. Further, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps No.2 and 3 that they have settled the death claim on receipt of death intimation from the nominee. There were 10 numbers of gap under 2 policies and 9 numbers of gap under 1 policy. Further, premiums were not deducted from 05/2010 till death of the life assured. Due to non-payment of premiums, policy came to lapsed condition. Since the Complainants have already received the death claim proceeds under policies of the deceased life assured, the Complainants are legally stopped to file the claim since the discharge voucher has already been executed by the Complainants to full and final satisfaction. So, the case of the Complainants is liable to be dismissed. Admittedly, the Complainants have already received the death claim as settled by the insurance company without any protest. According to settled principle of law, the authority reported in 1999(3) CPR-53 (SC) in the case of United India Insurance (Vrs.) Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & ors., where in it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that mere execution of discharge voucher would not always deprive Consumer from preferring claim with respect to deficiency in service or consequential benefit. If Consumer satisfies the authority that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, appropriate relief can be granted. But, in the instant case, on perusal of the case record, we found that those materials are lacking to get relief as claimed by the Complainants after execution of the discharge voucher and acceptance of the claim by them.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that after execution of the discharge voucher and acceptance of the claim by the Complainants, the Complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-   

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 28th day of March, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.