The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, L.I.C of India, Jaleswar Branch, Jaleswar, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the Divisional Manager, L.I.C of India, Claims Department, Cuttack Divisional Office, Cuttack.  

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is the wife and nominee of deceased Sudhakar Dey, who had opened the L.I.C policy bearing No.588830040 named as the “JEEVAN SARAL (WITH PROFITS)” for sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only on dtd.28.09.2009 with the O.P No.1. The date of maturity of the said policy is on 28.09.2024 and the same policy covers death claim benefit. The said policy was issued on 15.12.2009 with an yearly premium of Rs.9,608/- (Rupees Nine thousand six hundred eight) only and after scrutinizing all the required documents in that regard by the O.Ps, the insurance policy certificate was issued in the name of the insured Sudhakar Dey. The regular yearly premium in the said policy was paid by Sudhakar Dey and in total, 3 instalments/ premiums were given by him and also obtained policy premium receipts till 2011. But, unfortunately, on dtd.19.06.2012, the insured Sudhakar Dey died due to heart attack and thereafter, the Complainant being the nominee to get insurance benefit as per terms and conditions of the policy, has given claim intimation to the O.Ps on dtd.06.08.2012 and subsequently, as per the requirement of insurance policy, all the relevant documents are also submitted from time to time by the Complainant, but the O.Ps repudiated the claim illegally by a written letter dtd.16.09.2015, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps, for which the Complainant has filed this case. Cause of action arose on 16.09.2015. The Complainant has prayed for the settlement of death claim with interest along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    3. The O.Ps have appeared in this case through their Advocate and they have filed their written version beyond the statutory period, for which the written version is not accepted. The O.Ps are also set ex-parte. Neither the O.Ps nor their Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    4. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that she is the wife and nominee of deceased Sudhakar Dey, who had opened a L.I.C policy named as “JEEVAN SARAL (WITH PROFITS)” on 28.09.2009 bearing No.588830040 and sum assured was Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only. After deposit of 1st premium, policy was lapsed due to non-payment and subsequently, it was revived on 27.06.2011 and thereafter, on 19.06.2012, the policy holder was died due to heart attack. The fact of revival of the policy has not been mentioned in the pleading, but has been mentioned in the written argument. The O.Ps repudiated the claim on the ground that making incorrect statement and withheld correct information at the time of revival of assurance of the policy. He had also not suffering from any disease at the time of commencement of the policy as declared by the policy holder in the form of declaration in good health column. In support of his argument, the Advocate for the Complainant has relied upon the authority reported in 2009 (2) CPR-385 (N.C) in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Vrs.) Kulwant Kumari, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi that for purposes of Section-45 of Life Insurance Act, period of two years was to be counted from date on which policy was originally effected and not from the date of revival of the policy. In the instant case, such date is considered from the date of revival of the policy, which is not accepted. The O.Ps did not take part in hearing of this case for the reasons best known to them and written version is not accepted as mentioned earlier. So, in this case, the repudiation is bad in law, for which the Complainant is entitled for death claim benefit under such policy.   

                    5. 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 it is a fit case to direct the O.Ps for settlement of death claim under Policy No.588830040 named as “JEEVAN SARAL (WITH PROFITS)” of the Complainant with profits along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only and the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the same. The total amount including the death claim along with compensation and litigation cost is to be paid by the O.Ps within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount from the date of order till realization. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against the O.Ps with cost. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to settle the death claim under Policy No.588830040 named as “JEEVAN SARAL (WITH PROFITS)” of the Complainant with profits along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the whole amount including the death claim along with compensation and litigation cost from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 1st day of September, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.