Tripura

West Tripura

CC/66/2016

Smt. Mampi Dhar (Ghosh). - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd. & 1 other. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.Debbarma, Mr.S.Roy.

19 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 66 of 2016 

Smt. Mampi Dhar(Ghosh),
W/o- Lt. Bipul Kanti Ghosh,
Ramkrishna Ashram,
Gangail Road, P.S. West Agartala,
West Tripura.            ..…..…...Complainant.

         VERSUS

1. The Branch Manager,
Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
(Registration No. 110), Mantribari Road,
P.S. Est Agartala,West Tripura.
 
     2. Smt. Anjali Ghosh,
     W/O- Lt. Bhajan Chandra Ghosh,
     Jangaliya, P.S. Bisalgarh,
     District- Sepahijala.        ............Opposite party.

                 __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant    : Sri Subrata Roy,
                      Smt. Purnima Debbarma,
                      Advocates.
                     
    For the O.P. No.1        : Sri Dip Dutta Choudhury,
                      Advocate.

For the O.P. No.2        : Sri Alik Das,
                  Smt. Mallika Roy,
                 Advocates.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   19.01.2017

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Mampi Dhar (Ghosh) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that her husband, Bipul Kanti Ghosh, the policy holder died on 29.12.11. Petitioner's filed the claim petition against the policy for the amount of of Rs.3,50,000/-. The O.P. Insurance company did not take any step. Thereafter in the year 2012 she filed a case for succession Certificate. Succession Certificate was obtained. In that succession certificate case LICL admitted that Bipul Kanti Ghosh during his life time purchased 2 policies  from the Tata AIG LICL and Insurance company is to pay Rs.2,67,710/- for one policy and Rs.2,68,704/- for another policy. They will take step after getting the succession certificate. On such admission the court issued a succession certificate. And  it was received by the petitioner on 25.07.16.  But inspite of submission of succession certificate policy amount not given. There are 3 legal heirs of deceased Bipul Kanti Ghosh and all are entitled to get 1/3rd of the insured amount. Among 3 successors one is proforma respondent who is her mother in law. Admittedly she is the nominee of the policy. 

Insurance company, Tata AIG appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that the nominee of the aforesaid policy is the mother of Bipul Kanti Ghosh, Smt. Anjali Ghosh. Petitioner is not the nominee and therefore is not consumer. She is not the beneficiary at all. The nominee should have agitated and filed the complaint.

3.         Proforma O.P. Anjali Ghosh appeared and filed W.S. She has stated that the petition may be allowed and Tata AIG Insurance Company may be directed to deposit the insured amount and she  claimed 1/3rd of the amount as per law.  

4.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I) Whether the petition is maintainable? 
        (II) Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P. Insurance company and the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

Petitioner's side produced succession certificate, survival certificate, death certificate. Also produced the statement of affidavit  of Mampi Dhar.

6.        The O.P. Anjali Ghosh appeared and produced the statement on affidavit claiming 1/3rd, Photocopy of claim documents, policy also produced. 

7.        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.
Findings and Decision;
8.         We have gone through the documents, evidence as produced by both the parties. From the policy documents it is found that sum assured was Rs.3,50,000/- in the name of Bipul Kanti Ghosh. Policy term was for 20 years. Admittedly the premium of the policy up to date was paid. Bipul Kanti Ghosh, policy holder died on 29.12.11 in the Hapinia Hospital. So the cause of action arose on that date but thereafter the claim was not considered as succession certificate was not produced. Petitioner filed case vide 21.12.11 for getting the succession certificate. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Agartala issued the certificate in 2016. So on the strength of that certificate she placed the claim before the Tata AIG. But her claim was not considered. The plea of the Insurance company is that she was not the nominee. So, she is not entitled to get the claim. We have gone through the succession certificate issued by the Civil Judge, Senior Division in favour of Mampi Dhar, wife of the deceased, Bipul Kanti Ghosh. In connection with the succession case No-21/2012 the certificate issued against 3 policies for total sum assured Rs.6,80,370/-. But those polices do not relate to this policy no- U201069468 for this succession certificate  claim was not entertained. Succession certificate was issued in the year 2016. So, petitioner claim the amount as a successor. It is true that nominee will get the amount but it should be distributed among successors. Being successor petitioner is the beneficiary of the policy. So, she is definitely the claimant to get 1/3rd of the benefit of the insured amount. Her prayer to get the benefit was not considered. So, cause of action arose in the year 2016. As a consumer she filed this case when she was deprived  from proper service of Tata AIG. We therefore decided that the case is maintainable in its present form. 

9.        It is admitted fact that the petitioner Mampi Dhar  is the wife of the deceased and successor of the deceased Bipul Kanti Ghosh. In the policy certificate it is found that she is not the nominee. Her mother in law was the nominee. But being the successor she is entitled to get 1/3rd of the sum assured Rs.3,50,000/-. Policy premium was paid. It is up to date. The claim of the petitioner was repudiated as she is not the nominee. Nominee of this policy is Anjali Ghosh who appeared in this case and stated that she has no objection if the policy amount is released and 1/3rd is given to her. According to her statement she applied before the Insurance company. But for the want of succession certificate her claim was not entertained. Tata AIG produced no evidence to prove that Bipul Kanti Ghosh made any false declaration while opening the policy. She stated that Insurance company only paid Rs.31,259/-. Payment of unit value at the time of intimation was given to her. In case it is paid then Tata AIG should not pay this amount again. 

10.        We are of the considered opinion that Tata AIG should pay insured amount to the nominee and 2/3rd should be paid to the petitioner and his son. It is not written in the petition that  whether the petitioner is the natural guardian of minor son or not. The matter of minority also not projected before us. It is only written that she gave birth of minor Birpadip Ghosh. His age also not mentioned. So the share of Bipradip Ghosh only should be given to the petitioner if it is shown that he was minor and the petitioner is the legal guardian. The deficiency of service by the opposite party is found less in case of delay in payment as the petitioner failed to produce succession certificate and survival certificate before the Tata AIG. But when the succession certificate was produced Tata AIG should have released the amount and paid it to the nominee. This is deficiency of service. For this deficiency of service  petitioner is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- only. We direct the opposite party Tata AIG to pay the insured amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the nominee, Anjali Ghosh after deducting the of Rs.31,259/- that was paid earlier. The deceased paid annual premium Rs.35,000/- as stated & admitted and during the life time of the policy he died. So, his legal heirs are entitled to get Rs.3,50,000/-. Amount should be released in favour of nominee   Anjali Ghosh. O.P. is directed to pay 1/3rd to Mampi (Dhar)Ghosh  and 1/3rd to her grand son, Bripradip Ghosh or to his natural guardian in proof of minority. With this direction the case is disposed. Tata AIG is directed to pay the amount within 2 months, if fails it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.         
                 
                       Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.