Orissa

Rayagada

CC/22/2021

Tirikyo Sabar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Reliance Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

self

03 Sep 2022

ORDER

                     DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO._____22____/2021                                      Date.  3    .9. 2022.

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President.

Sri   Satis  Kumar  Panigrahi ,.                                         Member

 

 

Sri Tirikyo Sabar,   S/O: Late  Jan Sabar,  Vill: Abasinor, Po: Kolasing, Via: Gunupur, Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha)    765  022. Cell No.9439286465.                                                                                                                                  …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Branch Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., New Colony, Po/      Dist: Raygada, State:Odisha.

2.The  General  Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office, H.B.Block, Ist. Floor, DhirubaiAmbani  Knowledge  city,  Navi Mumbai, Maharastra State- 400710.                                                … Opposite parties.

For the complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps:- Sri  Biraja  Patra,, Advocate and associates.

                                                            JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non payment  death claim  towards policy No. 17201608 after death  of  father of the complainant  for which  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

On being noticed the O.Ps  appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the Policy No. 17201608  was issued  in the name of Jan Sabar,  Death  life assured  (D.L.A).   The   above  policy  was  commenced on Dt. 17.06.2010 under    Term- 15 years, plan name Trad. Reliance Invest Assure  for a sum assured of Rs.37,500/- with yearly  mode of payment premium  Rs.5,000/-.  Renewal  premium  under the policy  for  06/2011, 6/2012, 6/2013, 6/2014 total  5(five) Nos. of premiums  total    amounting to  Rs. 25,000/-  was paid ( Policy bond is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).   The policy holder  (D.L.A)  died on Dt. 04.8.2017 (Copies of the  Death certificate is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).

On perusal of the record this commission  found  the  life assured was died on  Dt.04.8.2017 and the  complainant  nominee was filed the case before  the  commission   to  get   the insurance benefits.

The  O.Ps  in their written version  contended that  the L.A. had  paid 5(five) Renewal  yearly   premium   @ Rs. 5,000/- per  premium   total amounting  to Rs.25,000/- .to the O.Ps.  

During  the course of hearing  the complainant  has admitted the above facts   as   mentioned in the  written version.

Again  The  O.Ps  in their written version  contended  that the  D.L.A. had failed to pay the premium due on 17.06.2015  even though L.A.   died  on Dt.4.8.2017.   The above policy was not  force   on Dt. 4.8.2017   due to non payment of premium due for  3 consecutive  years,    insurance  company can not be held liable to pay the benefits under the subject  policy. Hence the  O.P.  is not liable to pay any benefits in this policy. 

The O.Ps are   taking one and another pleas in the written version and had mentioned  a lot of citations of the Apex  courts and   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act

 

This commission observed due to non force the above policy   at the time of death of  life assured  as on  Dt.  4.8.2017  the complainant  nominee  is not entitled  the assured amount from the O.P.   The complainant is entitled  foreclosure amount  of Rs. 21,483.08  from the O.Ps.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed. 

                                                                       

O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  in part  on contest against the O.Ps.

            The O.Ps  are directed to pay  Rs.21,483.08  foreclosure amount to the complainant   with in  30 days from the date of receipt of this  order. Parties are left  to bear  their own cost.

.The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

            Dictated and  corrected by me.

            Pronounced in the open forum on       3rd.     day of    September, 2022.

 

 

                                                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT