DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 31st day of August, 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 74 of 2016
Smt. Pramila Das
W/o Lambodar Das
Vill: Dahanasuni
Po: Garadpur
Ps/Dist: Bhadrak……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Branch Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bhadrak Branch
At: Bonth Chhak
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
2. The Block Education Officer, Bhadrak
At: Jagannathpur (Near Bhadrak College Gate)
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak (T)
3. Ghunurani Das
W/o Late Prafulla Das
Vill: Dahanasuni
Po: Garadpur
Ps/Dist: Bhadrak …………………………..Opp. Parties
Advocate For the Complainant: Sri Radhakanta Nayak & Associates
Advocate For the OP No. 1: Sri Debendranath Panda
For the OP No. 2: In person.
Advocate For the OP No. 3: Sri Nirakar Jena & Associates.
Date of hearing: 21.02.2017
Date of order: 31.08.2018
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the complaint alleging against the O.Ps for deficiency of service, disclosing the following facts, that the complainant is the mother of deceased Prafulla Das who was the policy holder of policy No- 58389742 (Plan/Term (179/16/16) for an assured sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant has challenged the inaction of OP No. 1 & 2. The complainant’s son while working as Assistant Teacher in Bije Gangadharpur UGME School (Plan/Term. 179/16/16) for an assured sum of Rs 50,000/- for a period of 15 years having it’s date of commencement as 11.02.2010 and date of maturity as 02/2026 under Monthly Salary Saving Scheme. As per the policy condition the monthly installment was so fixed at Rs 300/- per month which was payable to the OP No. 1 insurance corporation in every month by the OP No. 2, the employer of the deceased policy holder after being deducted from the salary of the policy Holder-Employer as the said policy. It is to submit here that at the time of opening of the policy the name of the OP No. 3 has been reflected as the nominee to the said policy. Accordingly the monthly premiums were being deducted from the salary of the complainant’s son by the Employer and were deposited with the OP No. 1 insurance company.
That, the complainant and Ghunurani Das are the mother & wife of deceased policy holder Prafulla Das.
That, the complainant submitted all the relevant documents like death certificate & legal heir certificate etc. to the OP No. 1 for early settlement of claim and requested the OP No. 1 for disbursing the settlement amount to the complainant and OP No. 3 equally. But on 27.04.2016 the OP No. 1 refused to entertain the claim as non depositing the premium for a long period the policy has been lapsed.. That, under the terms & conditions of the policy the OP No. 3 being the nominee under the policy and the complainant being the legal heir as mother of Prafulla Das are entitled to the claims.
The cause of action arose on dt. 24.11.2014 when the policy holder has been died and 27.04.2016 the OP No. 1 refused to entertain the claim and disburse the claim amount therein “as non depositing the premium for a long period the policy has been lapsed”.
Hence the complainant has sought for the relief as follows:-
1. The OP No. 1 be directed to settle the claim under the monthly Salary Saving Scheme in favour of the complainant and OP No. 3 being the legal heir and nominee of Prafulla Das and to pay the amount due & benefits under the aforesaid policy to the complainant and OP No. 3 as entitled to share half each out of the aforesaid policy.
2. The OP No. 1 & 2 be directed to pay Rs 80,000/- towards mental agony & unnecessary harassment.
3. To grant other reliefs what the complainant is entitled to.
The documents filed by the complainant as follows (Xerox copies):-
1. The death certificate of deceased Prafulla Das issued by Dept. of Health & Family Welfare Bhadrak Municipal Council on 01.12.2014
2. Legal Heir certificate of Late Prafulla Das issued on 03.02.2015 by the Tahasildar Bhadrak- 1 sheet
3. Voter Identity card of complainant.
The OP No. 1 has filed his written version as follows:-
The OP No. 1 has denied all the allegations made by the complainant on the following ground that –
- The present case is not maintainable in this Forum as complainant is not a consumer /nominee under the Op party No.1.
- The Forum can not decide or direct to pay equally the benefits under the policy.
- Though it is admitted that one Prafulla Das had taken a Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 583839742 with premium @ 300/- per month , Ms Ghunurani Das in relation of wife to the life assured is the nominee under the policy and after initiation of the policy said prafulla Das has paid only two monthly initial premiums at the time of taking the policy and then has never paid any subsequent premium.
- The policy is in lapsed condition for non payment of premium as such nothing is payable in respect of that policy.
- Though the O.P No.3 is the nominee , she has not submitted relevant document as required by our office vide letter No. 07.11.2015.
Hence the OP No. 1 has prayed for the dismissal of this case. The OP No. 1 has not filed any document in support of his claim.
The OP No. 2 has also filed his written version as follows:-
That the premium amount of Rs 300/- bearing policy No- 58389742 in favour of Late Prafulla Das, Ex- Teacher has not been deducted from his monthly salary bill from February, 2010 to till his death .Hence the question of deposit of the LIC premiums against the said policy through salary saving scheme does not arise. The OP No. 2 is not an agent of LIC. The teachers of this establishment are accepting the policy from LIC through LIC agent selected by their own. The teachers or employees working in different Elementary schools after accepting the policy from LIC they are responsible themselves for regular deduction of their LIC premiums in regular salary bills ,which they are also aware of it. Once premiums are deducted in their monthly salary bills this office will not neglect in depositing of the same in the LIC office as the bills are prepared, drawn and released through online. If the teacher concerned will not deduct his premium in the pay bill submitted through Headmaster after accepting a policy from LIC office via LIC agent selected by his own this office cannot be forced to deduct and deposit the said premium amount at his own risk in the office of the LIC. In the present case the policy holder has not been instigated/ forced to accept the policy No. 58389742 . Rather this the office of the O.P No.2 was not aware that policy holder has accept this policy from LIC. Hence he has prayed for the exemption of OP No. 2 from this complaint and dismissal of the case.
The OP No. 3 has filed written version and appeared in this Forum through her concerned advocate and stated that she is the soul nominee of the policy No- 583839742 initiated by her deceased husband. As she is the nominee and legal marred wife of the complainant she is solely entitled to the claimed amount, which her husband has initiated the insurance policy assured a sum of Rs 50,000/- for a period of 15 years. She has also admitted that the complainant is one of the legal hires of deceased Prafulla Das. There are also other legal hire except the wife (Nominee) such as Tapu Das, Pramila Das (Mother) and Lombodhar Das (Father). She has also claimed to the owner of the entire claimed amount, non else. If any other nominee his claiming any part of the claimed amount he should take shelter under the Civil Court to get the relief. Hence she has also prayed for dismissal of this complaint. The OP No. 2 has also filed a counter affidavit both supported with no document in support her stands.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint as well as the documents filed by the complainant, further we have also perused the written version filed by the Ops. Now core issues are :-
- Whether the case is maintainable ?
- Whether the complainant has come with clean hand ?
Prier to decide the matter we are to observe the decisions as follows.
In Dheeraj Kumar Verma And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 24 September, 2004 & Equivalent citations: 2006 ACJ 1988, 2004 (3) BLJR 1776 held that -
The employee is known as beneficiary under the scheme. In case the beneficiary under the scheme i.e. the employee does not receive salary in any particular month it is the duty of the employer to advance the premium of that master policy to the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
This question was taken by parties before apex court in Chairman LIC and others v/s.Rajukumar Bhaskar (2005) AIR SCW Supreme Court 3636. Honble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that in any contract of insurance, employer under Salary Saving Scheme of LIC would be treated as an agent of LIC. Employer had accepted sole responsibility to collect premium from its employees and to remit the same by means of one cheque to the Corporation. No individual premium notice was required to be sent to any employee. Furthermore, no receipt was to be given therefor. Employer was to inform Corporation about changes in staff and employees were not made aware the communication between LIC and employer. Employer though not agent of LIC qua its Regulations, Honble Supreme Court held that it could be inferred that employer had implied authority to act as an agent of LIC in view of Section- 1986 of Contract Act.
“That, deduction of premium from the salary of the employee (Prafulla Das) was a matter between employer (OP No. 2) and the op no. 1 (LIC) and the insured not at fault for nonpayment of premium for the relevant period. That, the law is well settled that Employer under the Salary Saving Scheme acts as an agent of LIC while deducting premium amount from salary of Employee and failure on part of employer binds LIC of its liability to pay policy amount”
In this case first of all we are to decide whether the premiums deducted by the LIC is under Salary saving Scheme?
As it revels from the written version field by the O.P No.2 (the employer )-“the premium amount of Rs 300/- bearing policy No- 58389742 in favour of Late Prafulla Das, Ex- Teacher has not been deducted from his monthly salary bill from February, 2010 to till his death .Hence the question of deposit of the LIC premiums against the said policy through salary saving scheme does not arise”.
In this contest complainant did not produced any documents in respect of deduction of the money is under salary savings scheme and also failed to produce documents as the policy was in force till the death of the insurer. As such we feel no further entry to the position of the case is required and it is a fit case to dismiss as complainant has not came to the Forum in clean hand.
In view of the above it is clear that complainant has suppressed the real facts in the complaint and has not approached the Forum in clean hands. Taking the above facts and circumstances and the documents available on record in to consideration, we have no other alternative except to arrive at a conclusion that complainant has suppressed the entire truth and has not approached this Forum in clean hands for redressal of his grievance. As such the complaint is not sustainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for by him. Hence, ordered:
O R D E R
The complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P but in the circumstances without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of August,2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
