For Complainant         :           Sri Rajesh Kumar Tripathy, Advocate & associates.

For Opp. Party             :           Smt. T. K. Anand, Advocate.

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that Baida Pradhani, the late father of the complainant during his life time had obtained an LIC Policy bearing No.571394617 dt.22.07.2006 from the OP and Baida Pradhani died on 28.11.2007 when the policy was in force.  It is submitted that the complainant furnished claim application before the OP but the OP did not release the death claim in favour of the complainant.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to pay the sum assured with interest @ 9% p.a. from 28.11.2007 and to pay Rs.50/- per day from 28.11.2007 as compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the Policy No.571394617 issued in favour of Baida Pradhani on 22.07.2006 and the present complainant is the nominee under the policy.  It is contended that the OP has received the death intimation from the nominee on 29.03.2016 wherein the date of death of Baida Pradhani is mentioned as 28.11.2007 vide DCR No.CR-555/2007 dt.01.12.2007.  It is further contended that as per rule of the Corporation, if death occurs within 3 years from the date of commencement of the Policy, the said claim is to be treated as early claim and the claim is barred by limitation.  With these and other contentions, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed additional counters along with documents in support of their respective cases.  Heard from the A/R for the OP and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, LIC policy bearing No.571394617 dt.22.07.2006 issued by the OP in favour of Baida Pradhani and the death of the insured on 28.11.2007 are all admitted facts.  The complainant stated that he being the nominee under the policy filed claim application before the OP but the OP did not settle the death claim in his favour.

5.                     The OP in his counter stated that the death intimation along with the death certificate has been received by them on 29.03.2016.  Since it is an early death claim, they are in process in order to know the genuineness of the claim.  The OP further stated that any death intimation received after 3 years of death is barred by limitation and not payable.

6.                     In this case it is not a case of lapsed policy at the time of death of life assured.  Nothing has been mentioned in the counter in this connection.  It is also a fact that the OP has received death intimation and claim application from the nominee on 29.03.2016.  From the death certificate it is ascertained that the life assured has died at his home.  The OP stated that after 3 years of death, as per Corporation manual no claim is entertained but failed to file any supportive document to that effect.   No doubt, it is an early claim.  In the meanwhile, above three years has been elapsed in the guise of inquiry but the OP has neither filed its enquiry report in this case nor repudiated the claim which mean to say that the death is natural.

7.                     Further the complainant stated that he had filed claim application along with death certificate before the OP on 2 occasions but failed to adduce any evidence in support of his above contention.  Further the complainant has filed a certificate dt.11.07.2017 issued by Sarapanch of Chandrapada G.P. in which it is stated that the complainant Budra Pradhani, S/o. Late Baida Pradhani, a resident of Pradhaniguda alias Golariguda which is coming under Chandrapada G.P. and Budra Pradhani was working as labourer for 10 years i.e. from the year 2006 to 02.01.2016 in Andhra Pradesh State.  The Sarapanch has issued this certificate in connection with the absence of Budra Pradhani in his village for last 10 years.

8.                    From the above facts, it was ascertained that the complainant had no knowledge about the life insurance policy obtained by his father.  However, he is the nominee under the policy.  Therefore, it can be safely held that due to want of knowledge regarding policy obtained by his father during his life time, the present complainant and nominee cannot file the claim in time before the OP.

9.                     In fine, it was ascertained that the complainant had no knowledge about the life insurance policy obtained by his father during his life time under which the complainant was the nominee and upon knowledge, he had approached the OP for settlement of death claim in his favour.  It is seen that the OP has dragged the matter in the guise of enquiry and also has not repudiated the claim till date.  In the above circumstances, the complainant being the nominee is entitled to get the sum assured with interest.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant interest from the date of death of the DLA but from the date of filing of this case.  Similarly, we are also not inclined to grant any compensation and cost in favour of the complainant as prayed for.

10.                   In the result, the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to pay the sum assured of Rs.30, 000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 06.04.2016 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)