Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member:
Brief facts of the complaint petition is that Banamali Guchait was the father of the complainants assured his life with the opposite parties with three policy certificates being no.433869473 dated 28.6.2001, 436763033 dated 28.11.2004 and 436794599 dated 28.11.2005. During the payment of premiums the father of the complaint expired on 20.02.2006. At that time they were minor and they lost their mother within a year. That in the year 2014 the complainant became major and contacted the office of the opposite party and filed claim form along with relevant documents. Then the Manager Howrah Division Office informed the complainant vide letters dated 10.20.2015, 26.03.2016 and 13.05.2015 for submitting treatment papers of deceased Banamali Guchait for the period from 9/2002 to 3/2005. In reply to the letters of the opposite party the complainants informed the opposite party that their father never suffering from diabetic and also requested the opposite party for considering the case as early as possible. Thereafter two years have been passed and inspite of completion of formalities the opposite party withheld the claim of the complainants. According to these complainants the opposite party willfully and deliberately withhold the claim of the petitioners is negligence and deficiency of service, so the petitioners filed the instant case praying directions upon the opposite party to release and/or disburse the entire amount in three policy plus admission interest accrued on and from 2006 amounting to Rs.1,75,900/- including assured sum plus bonus.
The opposite party No.1 to 3 resisted the case by filing written version denying the allegations leveled against them and averred that the complainants claim that they were minors at that time. No papers have been filed in support of the same. But the instant case has been filed in or about on the month of June 2017 that is more or less than 11 years which is beyond the limitation period of 2 years. But the answering opposite party entertained the application along with relevant documents on or about 24th October, 2015 and continued with several correspondences as a part of their good services. The opposite party referred the case decision of Hon’ble Apex court in P.K. Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala &another it is observed “Law of Limitation may harshly effect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The Hon’ble National Commission in Ramratan M. Sriwas Vs. Jayant H. Thkkar held that “provision regarding Limitation period continued in Sec.24A being mandatory nature for a below was duty bound to determine whether complaint is within limitation period”. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Kaulgud Constructions Pvt. Ltd -Vs- SBI & another. It is also averred that the complainants filed the instant case after the death of their father but fact remains that after the death of their father mother was also the legal heirs. As per their records as to who is the legal heir or heirs as well as if the present complainants are the only legal heirs of the deceased life assured. That is why the opposite party have other alternative but to ask the present complainants to please submit the succession certificate vide letter dated 12.11.2015, 01.07.2016. But the complainants have not complied with such statutory provisions of law. In a succession case there is compulsory provision for publication of the said case matter in a widely circulated daily news paper so that any other interested person may know about the said case and may lodge their claim in that case. But the present complainants inspite of requesting them by this opposite parties to go through the legal format have intentionally avoided the said procedure to avoid the legal process to save huge money which require to be deposited as stamp duty. The opposite parties lastly averred that complainants have not complied with such statutory provisions of law to take wrongful gain.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition. Opposite Party 1 to 3 by filing a petition prayed to treat their written version as their evidence on affidavit which is accepted by this Forum.
Both sides filed written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainants and the opposite party heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainants Priyanka Guchait. & Surojit Guchait are ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2). Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3). Whether the Opposite parties carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards upon the Complainants?
4). Whether the complainants proved their case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainants Priyanka Guchait. & Surojit Guchait are ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainants are “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainants herein being the legal heirs of deceased life assured who insured his life before the opposite party company. So being beneficiary they are consumers and entitled to get service from the opposite party insurance company being the service provider.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complainants prayed for directions upon the opposite party to release and/or disburse the entire amount in three policies plus admission interest accrued on and from 2006 amounting to Rs.1,75,900/- including assured sum plus bonus and legal costs & other relief or reliefs as this Forum deems fit and proper ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainants?
The opposite party being the largest Insurance Company of the Nation associated with the insurance of a lot of people throughout the whole nation since a long back with self generated assets i.e. goodwill of the business. So, the credibility of the opposite party, Insurance Company is unquestionable and that is why the father of the complainants insured his life before the said company without any doubt. It is well settled proposition of law that a contract of insurance is based on the principles of utmost good faith-uberrimae fidei, applicable to both the parties.
The case of the complainants is that Banamali Guchait was the father of the complainants assured his life with the opposite parties with three policy certificates being no.433869473 dated 28.6.2001, 436763033 dated 28.11.2004 and 436794599 dated 28.11.2005. During the payment of premiums the father of the complainants expired on 20.02.2006. At that time they were minor and they lost their mother within a short period. That in the year 2014 the complainant became major and contacted the office of the opposite party and filed claim form along with relevant documents. Then the Manager, Howrah Division Office informed the complainants vide letters dated 10.20.2015, 26.03.2016 and 13.05.2015 for submitting treatment papers of deceased Banamali Guchait for the period from 9/2002 to 3/2005. In reply to the letters of the opposite party the complainants informed the opposite party that their father never suffering from diabetic and also requested the opposite party for considering the case as early as possible. Thereafter two years have been passed and inspite of completion of formalities the opposite party withheld the claim of the complainant. According to these complainants the opposite party willfully and deliberately withhold the claim of the petitioners is negligence and deficiency of service, so the petitioners filed the instant case before this forum praying directions upon the opposite party.
The opposite party in his written notes of argument assailed that the instant case has been filed in or about on the month of June 2017 that is more or less than 11 years which is beyond the limitation period of 2 years. But the answering opposite party entertained the application along with relevant documents on or about 24th October, 2015 and continued with several correspondences as a part of their good services. The opposite party referred the case decision of Hon’ble Apex court in P.K. Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala &another it is observed “Law of Limitation may harshly effect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The Hon’ble National Commission in Ramratan M. Sriwas Vs. Jayant H.Thakkar held that “provision regarding Limitation period continued in Sec.24A being mandatory nature for a below was duty bound to determine whether complaint is within limitation period” at the same time held that once period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between parties. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Kaulgud Constructions Pvt. Ltd -Vs- SBI & another. It is also averred that the complainants filed the instant case after the death of their father but fact remains that after the death of their father, mother was also the legal heirs. As per their records as to who is the legal heir or heirs as well as if the present complainants are the only legal heirs of the deceased life assured. That is why the opposite party has no other alternative but to ask the present complainants to please submit the succession certificate vide letter dated 12.11.2015, 01.07.2016. But the complainants have not complied with such statutory provisions of law. In a succession case there is compulsory provision for publication of the said case matter in a widely circulated daily news paper so that any other interested person may know about the said case and may lodge their claim in that case. According to Sec.39(5) of the Insurance Act,1938 stipulates as follows that where the policy matures for payment during the lifetime of the person whose life is assured or where the Nominee…. Die before the policy matures for payment the amount secured by the policy shall be payable to the policy holder or his heirs or legal representatives or the holder of succession certificate as the case may be. In the instant case the opposite party assailed that it is not known to them as per their records as to who is the actual legal heir or heirs as well as if the present complainants are the only legal heirs of the deceased life assured. That is why the answering opposite parties have no other alternative but to ask the present complainants to please submit the Succession Certificate. The opposite parties have asked the same by their repeated letters dated 12.11.2015, 01.07.2016 and 08.07.2017. But the complainants have not complied with such statutory provisions of law. Filing of a mere, Legal Heirship Certificate issued by a Panchayat Prodhan on the basis of an affidavit cannot replace a succession certificate. In the above premises it would be clear enough that failing to make payment of death claim to the complainants by avoiding the legal complication as well as the statutory legal procedure cannot be equated with any sort of deficiency in service or negligence.
After hearing the arguments of Ld. Advocates of the parties, perusing the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, written notes of argument and the documents in the case record this Forum is in the opinion that the complainants being the legal heirs of deceased policy holder filed the claim Form in respect of insurance policies in the name of the deceased life assured. But the opposite party received the said claim Form but failed to settle the claim with lame excuse. So the complainants getting no alternative filed the instant complaint petition before this Forum praying directions upon the opposite parties as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition. The opposite parties assailed that the complainants filed the instant complaint after a long period of cause of action so it is not maintainable before this Forum. It appears from the case record that the mother of the complainants died on 23.07.2013 within a gap of more than 7 years of death of their father. Now the complainants being the legal heirs of deceased policy holder are entitled to get the death benefits of policies held in the name of deceased father of the complainants. The opposite party should not cause impediment in the path of getting the death benefits of the complainants as they are legally entitled to get the same. As the succession certificate is not mandatory so the complainants may get the death benefits of the policies lying before the opposite party. It is expected from the opposite party being a reputed company throughout the nation to settle the claim and disburse the same to the legal heirs of the deceased policyholder to show good gesture upon the bonfide claimant as there is no other person filed any claim form before the opposite party in respect of death benefits of deceased policy holder. The complainants filed application to dispense with legal evidence of title as per proforma supplied by the opposite party on stamp paper of Rs.50/- alongwith letter of Indemnity where the claim amount payable exceeds Rs.5000/- but does not exceed Rs.1,00,000/-. Claimants also filed Claimant’s Statement in the specified Form of opposite party but the opposite party could not settle the claim on the ground that the complainants failed to file Succession Certificate to ascertain the legal right by the competent court. Although there was alternative way to get the death benefits of deceased policy holder. We find the merits in the averments of the complainants as such the complaint petition is deserved to be allowed.
So we are in a considered opinion to allow the complaint as the complainants being the legal heirs of the deceased policy holder are entitled to get the sum assured with bonus and other benefits if any for death. We direct the opposite party Insurance Company i.e. the OP No.1 to 3 to pay the sum of Rs.1,75,900/- including interest @ 8% from the date of filing the complaint petition till realization in favour of the complainants.
4). Whether the complainant proved their case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainants abled to prove their case and the Opposite Party is liable to pay the ordered amount.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.128 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party with a litigation cost of Rs.6,000/-.
The whole gamut of the facts and circumstances leans in favour of the complainants. We, therefore, allow the complaint petition and Opposite Party is directed to pay the sum assured in three policies alongwith interest @ 8% since the date of filing complaint petition before this Forum till realization including bonus and other benefits if any for death in favour of the complainants within 45 days from the date of order.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 shall pay cost @ Rs.100/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.
