West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/198/2012

Smt. Parul Samui - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.198/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 22/10/2013                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. K. Choudhury. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. D. Ghosh. Advocate.

          

Smt. Parul Samui W/o-late Panchanan Samui resident of Vill-Basulia, P.O.-Srinagar, P.S.-Chandrakona, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ghatal Br. P.O & P.S.- Ghatal,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. Divisional Manager, LICI, Kharagpur Division Office, Malancha Road, P.O.-Nimpura,, P.S.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
3. Smt. Asima Samui, W/o-late Ashok Samui, Vill-Basulia P.O.-Srinagar, P.S.-Chandrakona, Dist-Paschim Medinipur……………..………Ops.

        Case of the complainant Smt. Parul Samui, in short, is that Ashoke Samui purchased some policies as mentioned subsequently in the amendment petition in his name. Anima Samui is the nominee thereof.  The complainant Smt. Parul Samui is the mother of the said policy holder. On 12/7/2011 policy holder Ashoke Samui died of drowning and a U.D. case being its no.117/11 dated 26/7/2011 has been started.  In that event, complainant requested Asima Samui, wife of the deceased, for mutual agreement in order to get the policy benefit in equal share.  But Asima Samui did not pay any heed to.  Ultimately, the complainant moved before the Branch Manager L./I.C.I., Ghatal., stating the entire fact of the case, even by lawyer’s notice.  But till date Op no.2 is trying to avoid the payment and thereby the complainant approached before us with the allegation of willful deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant and she prays for getting payment of sum assured with interest and harassment cost against the Op-LICI.

       Op-L.I.C.I. contested the case by filing written objection claiming that the case should be dismissed for want of cause of action.  In this connection, it is very categorically stated

Contd………………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

that policy No.433538428 was not purchased in the name of Ashoke Samui.  Apart from that, other two policy nos.4369726012 and 49970137 have no existence.  So according to them there is no question of claim should come from the end of the complainant.  Lastly, the complainant claims herself    to be mother of the deceased Ashoke Samui and Smt. Anima Samui to be wife of the said deceased as a nominee of those policies.  According to the record of the alleged policies, the complainant being not recorded nominee thereof and thereby she has no right to claim insurance benefit against the Op/L.I.C.I..  According to the rules and regulations only the nominee of policy may claim the prescribed benefit of the policy.  Thus, the case should be dismissed.

Decisions with reasons

      Having considered the case of both parties it is evident that policy nos.499970137, 436972601 and 435538428 were purchased in the name of Ashoke Samui and one Asima  Samui as wife of the said policy holder has been declared as nominee thereof.  Now question is that whether the complainant Parul Samui as here in this case is entitled to get the benefit of those policies in the event of policy holder’s death since there appears a name of another person to be wife of the deceased policy holder as nominee duly delivered by him.  In this aspect it is very simple steps is/was to be taken from the complainant by virtue of appropriate legal documents from the complainant so that the Op/L.I.C.I. may have an opportunity to consider the claim of death benefit arising out of those alleged policies.  But here in this case, no such appropriate steps have been taken on the part of the complainant and as such the case of allegation on deficiency in service has not been satisfactorily made out against the Op/L.I.C.I.  Thus, the case should fail.

       Hence,

                   It is ordered,

                                        that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost. 

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                       Member                                                      President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.