West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/167/2012

Smt. Bakul Bala Dolai - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

11 Jun 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.167/2012                                                         Date of disposal 11/06/2014                               

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

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :      For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Dutta, Advocate.

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

          

            Smt. Bakul Bala Dolai, W/o Gorachand Dolai of Vill. Bhangadaha, P.O. Panna, P.S. Ghatal,

            Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. The Branch Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ghatal Branch Office, at Kuspata P.O. & P.S. Ghatal, Dist- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721212
2. The Divisional Manager, Kharagpur Division Office, at Lalbanglo, Malancha Road, P.O. Nimpura, P.S. Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721304...……………Ops.

 

          The case of the complainant Smt. Bakul  Bala Dolai , in short, is that she already received the sum assured  as death benefit of the policy in the event of  her son Jaganath Dolai the life assured who expired on 24/8/2011 due to road traffic accident taken place on 22/08/2011.  Grievance of the complainant is that the Op refused the payment of accidental benefit with bonus and other charges in spite of repeated request.

            The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action as the policy was not in force on the date of death of the life assured since he died after non payment of two annual premiums. In that case the paid up value of the said policy has been given to the complainant by cheque No.891750 dated 22/11/2011 as death benefit and in the effect on lapse policy, there is no rules for accidental benefit.  Thus, denial of accident benefit does not invite the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Op.  

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Conted…………..P/2

 

 

- ( 2 ) -

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3.   Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the Op Insurance Company has given death benefit without considering the accidental benefit. As per rules the company could have given the accidental benefit after deduction of unpaid premiums and accrued interest thereof.  But the Op has taken no steps in terms of the said rules in spite of several request made by the complainant.  In this connection, it is submitted by the Ld. Advocate that in another case the complainant received complete benefit.

               Ld. Advocate made his argument referring to the specific rules that in case of lapse policy there is no scope for making payment of accidental benefit.  In this connection, status report dated 18/02/2013 in respect of the relevant policy no.431794649 and the rules relating to the double accident benefit claims are discussed by the Ld. Advocate in this regard.  The status report is unchallenged by the complainant. Ld. Advocate has submitted that the policy was not inforced on the date of accident as well as at the time of death of the life assured.  The rules in this behalf does not recognize the accident benefit.  So, there is no valid scope available to the complainant for claiming accident benefit in addition to the receipt of sum assured as death benefit.  As a result, the claim made by the complainant in the petition has no place before the Op-Insurance Company.

               We have carefully considered the case along with the argument made by the respective parties.  The policy is based on certain terms and conditions and the parties are binding with them.  It is evident that the policy was not in force for lapse of two consecutive premium during the life time of the life assured.

               In view of the discussion made here in above it is held and decided that the complainant has no cause of action for presentation of this case.  Thus all the issues are disposed of against the complainant.

             Conted…………..P/3

 

 

- ( 3 ) -

               Under the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed, the case should be dismissed.   

               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.