Presented by Miss B. L. Dora, Member . <br /> In this case, the Opposite Party No.1(one) is the local and Opposite Party No.2(two) is the divisional authorities to look after the settlement of policy claims of L.I.C policy holders of their locality. The Complainant is an 'Asha Deep' medi-claim policy holder vide the L.I.C policy No.590791271 and is a regular payer of policy premium.<br /> <br /> The Complainant has suffered with health deficiency due to some ailments was in need of money for treatment. The Complainant placed his claim before the Opposite Party No.1(one) who directed him to place all relevant documents and Nil encumbrance certificate and the Complainant has placed all particulars relating to his treatment with Nil encumbrance before the Opposite Party No.1(one). But after fulfilling of all norms, the Opposite Party No.1(one) deferred to disburse the claim amount on some pretext for which the Complainant has contacted the local officials and also placed several letters before the Opposite Party No.1(one) but all attempts became futile. Finding no other way, the Complainant has served pleader's notice on the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties with out taking any step to pay the claim amount and compensate the Complainant for their negligence, kept mum by sending some baseless reply to the pleader notice. <br /> <br /> Due to such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has suffered with mentally, physically and financially. For this non payment of medi-claim amount at his urgent need, the treatment of the Complainant was in hindrances and health decreases due to lack of treatment for lake of fund amounts to negligence in duty and deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties and hence, this complaint.<br /> <br /> In order to strengthen his case, the Complainant relies on the office copy of pleader notice Dt.30/05/2009 postal receipts, premium paid receipt etc.<br /> <br /> The prayer of the Complainant is that, the Opposite Parties be directed to pay the Complainant the policy claim amount along with an additional amount of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental, financial agony and harassment.<br /> <br /> In it's response, the Opposite Parties challenges the maintainability of the case. As this body corporate institution established in 1956, it exercises the power to secure the development of insurance business at it's best advantage of the community. To make payment at any claim, the original policy bond is very much necessary. In case of it's lost, duplicate bond can be issued on the ground of satisfaction of the lost. But the Complainant in this case has claimed for medi-claim amount without furnishing the original policy Bond. The Opposite Parties filed the letter Dt.20/06/2008 (Annexure-I) in which the Complainant has mentioned that the policy in question has been lost. He again wrote in another letter Dt.16/12/2008 (Annexure (II)) that, he had mis placed the policy bond which is not traceable and that said policy is free from encumbrances. On the other hand, the Branch Manager, SBI, Bargarh had written letter to the Opposite Parties on Dt .02/09/2004 (Annexure-III) speaks that, the said policy was submitted to the SBI as security for loan and that the same was not traceable at their end. It is a hindrance for the Opposite Parties to issue duplicate policy Bond with out proper satisfaction of the ground to know set free from any loan security or the lost or misplace of the said bond. The Opposite Party has written a letter to SBI, Bargarh on Dt.14/05/2009 (Annexe-IV) to conform that the said policy is free from encumbrances, to proceed with the said claim by issuing a duplicate policy bond. Then the Opposite Parties have repeatedly advised the Complainant to settle the matter with the SBI. The Complainant should have obtained a certificate from SBI regarding the non- encumbrance of the policy for early settlement of the medi-claim instead of filing this case. Hence, the Complainant should complete the required formality for issuance of a duplicate bond to proceed with the claim and be directed by the Forum to submit the exact case of missing of the said policy bond.<br /> <br /> <br /> Gone through the petitions, perused the documents and heard from the counsels it is obvious that, the Complainant is a medi-claim(Asha Deep) policy holder and is entitled to get the claim amount for his disease solution as per the policy condition. The Opposite Party required the policy Bond in original to settle the claim amount in favour of the Complainant. But as per the Opposite Partie's version, the said policy Bond is submitted near the SBI, Bargarh for the security of loan. Hence, the deposit of the original policy Bond before the LIC is the pick point to settle the claim amount in favour of the Complainant. On the other hand, the Complainant has filed a document Dt.06/03/2010 in which the Chief Manager, SBI has written a confirmation letter that the said policy has not assigned in favour of the SBI, Bargarh, Main Branch to words any loan or credit facility to Shri Agrawal. By this, as per the aforesaid letter of the Chief Manager, S.B.I., Bargarh, the Original Policy Bond is free from encumbrances & as such the Complainant is entitled to get the claim amount in every point of view. <br /> In accordance to this, the petition of the Complainant is allowed.<br /> <br /> -: O R D E R :-<br /> The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to pay the policy claim amount with Rs. 2,000/-( Rupees two thousand) only for mental agony & litigation expenses to the Complainant within 15 days from the date of order, failing which the total amount awarded shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till realization.<br /> <br /> The Case is disposed of.