Date of filing:-17/02/2016.
Date of Order:- 23/11/2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 07 of 2016
(1) Shikhal Danee D/o-Late Bhuwendra lal aged about -17(seventeen) years Occupation – Dependant R/o- Sunaripara (Near Bhagbat Mandir) P/o-Sunaripara P.s/Dist-Sundargarh Represented through her mother guardian.
(2) Basanti Lal W/o Late Bhuwendra Lal aged about 47 years Occupation – Pensioner R/o Sunaripara (Near Bhagwat Mandir) P/o-Sunaripara P/S/Dist- Sundargarh. ..... ..... .... Complainants.
..... ...... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri P.C. Mahananda, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri D.Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.23/11/2016 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-
The Brief fact of the case:-
The Brief case of the Complainant as per her Complainant is that during the life time of the husband of the Petitioner No.2(two) he had purchased a life insurance policy from the Opposite Party for a sum assured amount of Rs 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs)only Vide policy no 593856376 and had paid an amount Rs.21,576/-(Rupees twenty one thousand five hundred seventy six)only as the first premium on Dt 28.02.2010 and the same amount was supposed to be paid by him on yearly basis for 28(twenty eight) years. But to his ill-Luck as he was suffering from diabetic, high blood pressure and for which he was even not being able to attend his job regularly resulting to which could not pay the subsequent dues of his insurance premium and ultimately died on Dt.02.05.2014 leaving him her minor daughter as his nominee of the policy and his wife behind and as per the Complainant as the his defaulter in paying the dues of the insurance policy was not intentional rather was being prohibited by his prolonged ill-ness as such are entitled for the sum assured amount of the policy and as on claiming the same before the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party repudiated their claim the case has been filed by the legal heir complainants for redressal of their dispute , on perusal the record and hearing their advocate the case was admitted and on being noticed the Opposite Party appeared before the Forum.
The Opposite Party filed his version through his advocate denying their liabilities for such payment on several ground as such the insured person has defaulted in making his dues of premium in time and also has suppressed the fact of his illness.
On perusal of record, the documents filed by both the parties it is clear that admittedly the deceased insured person was insured by the Opposite Party and also it is admitted by both the parties that only one premium of the policy was paid by the insured person and due to his prolonged diseases he could not continue his said policy and ultimately died due to such ill-ness as such the case, and in such circumstances, after hearing both the learned advocate of the respective parties and having gone through the record , we are of the view that the insured has purchased the said policy with piouse reason to safe guard his family members and had paid the 1st premium amount to the Opposite Party definitely with an hope to live for a long live but however he succumbed to his ill-ness and could not pay the rest amount of dues premiums,as such he is not entitled to the whole sum assured amount as the complainants has claimed for, secondly while dealing with the allegation of suppression of the fact of his ill-ness at the time of commencement of the policy by the insured person, we are of the view that it was also the duty of the Opposite Party to ascertain whether the person to whom he is going to insure is having any fatal diseases or not which he has not conducted.
More over taking the spirit of the enactment of the consumer protection Act which is a benevolent provision of Law specialty to safe guard the interest of the consumer from unfair trade practice and deficiencies in giving service to it’s consumer by the trader, As such taking the circumstances of the case and the motive of the deceased insured and present status of his family members we are of the view that the complainant are entitled to get refund the premium amount which the insured had paid as such the order follows.
Hence the Opposite Party is directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.21,576/-(Rupees twenty one thousand five hundred seventy six)only with an interest per annum @ 5% from the date payment of the said premium within one month of the order to the Complainants, in default of which it would incur interest per annum @ 12% from the date of such payment of premium.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
. M e m b e r.
