DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 78 OF 2016

Pitambar Mohapatra (79 Years),

S/O- Late Nidhi Mohapatra,Daughter-in-law–Jayashree Ratha,

RO: Qr. No.A/19, TRL Colony, Gumadera,

PO/PS: Belpahar, Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha…………..…………………Complainant.

Versus

1. Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Jharsuguda Branch,

PO/PS/Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha.

2. The Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India, Belpahar Branch,

PO/PS- Belpahar, Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha.……………….Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                   Self.               

For the Opp. Party No.1                              Sri B.N. Dutta, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.2                           None.

Date of Order: 20.03.2017

Present

                                                                                   1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.

                                                                                   2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Member.

                                                                                  3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member (W).

Shri S.K. Ojha, Member :-   The brief facts of the complaint case is that, the complainant’s son had insured his life with the O.P.No.1 bearing LIC Policy No. S-590836757 vide Table and Term as 93 / 25 having sum assured Rs.50,000/- only.  The said policy was commenced from dtd.28.03.1994 to 28.03.2019.  The complainant’s said son namely, Alok Kumar Mohapatra unfortunately expired on dtd. 21.06.2014 at CMC Hospital , Vellore ( Tamilnadu) and afterwards his daughter-in-law was/is taking care of the complainant and family.  The complainant through his said daughter-in-law claimed for insurance before the O.P.No.1 but the O.P.No.1 intimated that the said insurance policy has been assigned with the O.P.No.2 and demanded few necessary documents.  The complainant while asking the O.P.No.2 came to know that the said insured had paid all the dues towards loan during his lifetime regarding which the O.P.No.2 (Bank) has informed the O.P.No.1 through a letter dtd. 20.04.2015. But the O.P.No.1 demanding claim form ‘A’, discharge voucher and NEFT form in connection with the death claim as the policy was not

re-assigned to the policy holder.  The complainant is being harassing between the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 by running to both of them and finding no other way filed this case for adjudication.     

            On receiving notices the O.P.No.1 filed his written version through his counsel and the O.P.No.2 failed to appear and filing of written version as such stand ex-parte.  The O.P.No.1 submitted that they are ready to settle the claim subject to submission of original policy Bond. The policy is still assigned in the name of Bank and it is the O.P.No.2 who will submit the original policy Bond after cancellation of assignment and denying any allegation made by the complainant prayed for dismissal of the case.

            The matter was heard from both the sides and perused the materials available on record.  Regarding the facts of insurance, occurrence of death of the insured, claim of insurance so also assignment of insurance policy are not disputed.  Rather the dispute arose and the O.P.No.1 put his weight of responsibilities on the O.P.No.2 for clarification on assignment of policy.   In return, the O.P.No.2 through his letter dtd. 20.04.2015 clearly mentioned that the insured has cleared all the dues towards his loan and cancelled the assignment of the insured but instead, the O.P.No.1 repeatedly writing to the O.P.No.2 regarding existing of assignment in their records.  In between the O.Ps. the complainant put in severe harassment by rushing to both the O.Ps. Though the O.P.No.2 failed to appear but as per the record he has performed his duty well by issuing letter dtd. 20.04.2015 infavour of  the O.P.No.1 and returned the original policy Bond to the complainant for production before the O.P.No.1 for settlement of insurance claim but while submitting the required documents by the complainant to the O.P.No.1, the O.P.No.1 fails to settle the claim as the assignment still stands in favour of the complainant in the record of O.P.No.1.

            In a common view, if the policy is assigned before a Bank, why the concerned Bank will return the original policy Bond to the complainant unless the loan is cleared? It is exactly happened in this case, the O.P.No.2 / Bank has returned the original policy Bond to the complainant and cancelling the assignment informed to the O.P.No.1 for settlement of claim but the O.P.No.1 has not settled the claim yet.

            The activities of O.P.No.1 is found to be gross deficient in his service as per the above observations and analysis, hence the complaint petition is hereby allowed with directions to the O.P.No.1 as follows.

ORDER

1. The O.P.No.1 is hereby directed to settle the insurance death claim bearing the Insurance policy No. S-590836757 and pay to the complainant the required death claim amount as per the policy condition.
2. The O.P.No.1 is hereby further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees  ten thousand) only towards harassment, mental agony including cost of litigation.
3. The above mentioned orders are to be carried out within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order, if fails the O.P.No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on above mentioned awarded amounts till realization.                                                                                                                         

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 20^th day of March’ 2017 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule. 

          I Agree.                             I Agree.                                                                                          

1.  Nanda, Member( W)         S. L. Behera, President             S.K.Ojha, Member             

Dictated and corrected by me

      S.K.Ojha, Member