DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

Dated the 13th day of November, 2017

C.D.Case No. 39 of 2016

Kartik Chandra Sahu

S/o: Late Subash Chandra Sahu

At: Harisinghpur

Po: Pirahat

Ps: Tihidi

Dist: Bhadrak

                                                        ……………………. Complainant

            (Versus)

1. The Branch Manager, L.I.C of India, Bhubaneswar Branch

    At: Satya Nagar (Unit-7 Surya Nagar)

    Bhubaneswar

    Dist: Khurda, Odisha

2. The Sr. Divisional Manager, L.I.C of India, Cuttack Division

    JEEVAN PRAKASH

    Nuapatna, Cuttack- 753001

3. Zonal Manager, L.I.C of India, East Central Zone

    JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, 6th Floor, Exhibition Road

    Patna- 800001

                                                     …………………………..Opp. Parties

For the Complainant: Sri G. Bal & Others

For the O.Ps: Sri D. Panda

Date of hearing       : 18.03.2017

Date of order          : 13.11.2017

SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint against the O.Ps in respect of the deficiency of service caused by them to the complainant are to effect that the complainant’s father was an employee in the Govt. press situated at Bhubaneswar and on dt. 06.02.2013 he had taken his last breath. The O.Ps allured Late Subash Ch Sahu the father of the complainant, proposed him to insure his life under the Life Insurance Policy of the O.Ps. Hence he had preferred upon Life Insurance Policy under the O.Ps. He was agreed with the terms & conditions of the policy and became satisfied with the privileges. On 08.08.2011 the father of the complainant opened the policy named & styled as “Salary Savings Scheme” vide Policy No. 587821367 & 20.05.2011 vide policy No. 587821089 under the O.Ps. In the Policy No. 587821089 the each installments for payment was Rs 579/- vide proposal No. 19410 and the sum assured for Rs 75,000/-. The date of risk stated from 31.12.2010 and the date of last payment was fixed on dt. 20.11.2022 and the maturity date was agreed on 20.12.2022. In where the present complainant as son of the deceased. Likewise in policy No. 587821367 the each installments for payment was Rs 524/- vide proposal No. 7324 & the sum assured for Rs 60,000/-. The date of risk stated from 08.08.2012 & the date of last payment was 08.07.2022 & maturity date was agreed on 08.08.2022. In where the present complainant as son of the policy holder was nominee & policy No. 587821089 each installment for payment was of Rs 499.50p vide proposal No. 2031.

That, unfortunately the father of the complainant had taken his last breath on 06.02.2103 by heart attack during his service period. After the death of the father of the complainant, he duly approached the OP No. 1 for disbursement of the policy amount as he nominee to the policy conditions as well as the legal heir of the policy holder & also submitted all his required documents to the OP No. 1 & 2 as they are most trusted insurance company of the country and authorized to the OP No. 1 to provide personal accident insurance against the loss of life due to accident or sudden unnatural death of policy holders. But the OP No. 2 in a wrong view and misconception of facts and circumstances repudiated the claim of the policy holder on dt. 16.11.2015 vide his office letter No. REF: CD/OGSSS/CLAIM/AO. In connection to the above policies stating there in that assured policy holder suppressing about the previous illness & the policy holder made deliberate mis-statement & withheld the material information regarding his health at the time of affecting the proposal & the policies has been declared as null & void (the letter issued by the OP No. 2 is attached herewith as Anx- 3). The OP No. 2 also advised to approach the OP No. 3 if she would feel that the claim has not consider properly.

The complainant also duly approached to the OP No. 3 vide letter dt. 11.01.2016 by resisted post with AD but unfortunately he remained silent on receipt of the said request letter. Even if though the complainant requested again & again for supply of the Xerox copy of the policy bond to know about the terms & conditions but though the complainant has been assured but ended in vain. The complainant ask for the copy through RTI application, the O.Ps handed over an invisible of copy same.

The cause of action arises on 11.03.2016 when the O.Ps duly received the documents through RTI Act & approached the O.Ps disburse the mature amount.

A. Hence the complainant has prayed for the relief of given direction to pay matured insured amount in policy Nos. 587821367 & 587821089 along with interest as for the plan of the insure policy.    

B. The O.Ps be directed to pay the mature insured amount along with interest.

C. The complainant be awarded Rs 10,000/- for the deficiency of service, Rs 10,000/- towards cost of the litigation & Rs 5,000/- for legal expenditure.

The complainant has filed some documents such as:-

1- CD/OGSSS/CLAIMS/AO, death claimed against policy No. 58782367.

2- Death claim on 16.11.2015 against policy No. 587009875 on 16.11.2015.       

3- A letter issued against the Zonal Manager, Patna on 11.01.2016.

4- Status Report of Policy No. 587009875 (3 sheets).

5- Letter to Kartik Chnadra Sahoo.

6- Xerox copy of the policy bond (3 sheets).

7- Copy of the insurance policy a fixing 5 insurance ticket.

On the other hand the O.Ps have submitted their written version sought for the reliefs of dismissal.

The O.Ps have filed that written version analogously such as bellow. They challenged the complaint, regarding the maintainability, prayed for the dismissal of the same for suppression of facts. They have also stated that the present Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction captioned matter. The policy under consideration was initiated at the branch office Bhubaneswar, OP No. 1 and the claim was repudiated at Cuttack, OP No. 2. So the cause of action has arisen at the jurisdiction of OP No. 1 & 2. In this regard they have cited some decisions of the Apex Court. Neither The complainant nor the deceased were remaining at Bhadrak jurisdiction at the time of occurrence. According to Sec-11 (2) (a) or 17 (2)(a) with CP Act. The name of the OP No. 3 should be deleted from this case because he is not a necessary party to this case. The OP have further stated that U/s 45 of the insurance Act that the complainant has suppressed the material facts at the time of initiating the policy. The averments made in paragraph No. 1, 2, 3, 4 of the complaint has been specifically denied by the O.Ps. During the process of inquiry the employer of the deceased submitted some documentary evidences which proved that the deceased policy holder was having illness and remaining in medical leaves prior to institution of the policy. While verifying the treatment particulars, it was detected that Late Subash Chandra Sahoo was suffering from health problems and availed medical leave from 06.05.2008 to 25.05.2008. He had been hospitalized at Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar on 06.05.2008 and discharged on 11.05.2008. Those information was not disclosed in the proposal form dt. 20.12.2010 submitted for assurance by wrong answering to the relevant questions No. 11 (i)(ii)(iii). As such these evidences made it clear that the deceased policy holder made deliberate misstatements and with held material information regarding his health at the time of taking the insurance. Had there been the deceased life assured disclosed the facts, the underwriting decision would have been different. Taking all these factors to consideration the OP No. 2 repudiated the death claim of complainant in respect of policy No. 587009875 of the deceased policy holder and intimated this fact to the complainant vide office letter Ref. No. CD/OGSSS/Claims/AO dt. 16.11.2015. The O.Ps have further stated that basing on Sec- 45 of the Insurance Act. & according to the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of L.I.C of India and other versus Sunita Sharma, CPJ3 (NC), part-1 1994. Repudiation of L.I.C cannot be regarded as deficiency of service, regarding unfair trade practice are only manufacture by the complainant for the purpose of filing this case. The O.Ps have denied averments made in the paragraph No. 6 & 7 are stuntly. The insurance contract is based upon the principle of “Uberrimafide”. In this regard the O.Ps have filed some important decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 1962 SC 814 held that the deliberate concealment of fact by the proposer, that he had been treated by the Doctor before the policy was effected/revived, the policy is vitiated and cannot claim the benefit of a contract which has been entered into as a result of fraudulent suppression of facts, it has further held that all moneys that has been paid in consequence of the policy would belong to the company if the policy was vitiated by reason of fraudulent suppression of material facts by the insured. Neither Sec- 65 nor Sec- 64 of the Indian Contract Act has any application. The O.ps have filed some documents on behalf of them.

(1) Letter to Kartik Chandra sahoo Ref: CD/CRM/RTI-143/2015-16 on dt. 01.03.2016, 1 sheet.

(2) Xerox copies of policy bond- Anx- A (3 sheets)- vide policy No. 587009875.

(3) Xerox copy of address of ombudsman, 1 sheet.

(4) Xerox copy of policy vide No. 587821367 Anx- B (3 sheets).

(5) Grievance Redressal of Ombudsman, 1 sheet.

(6) Xerox copy of police vide No. 587821089, Anx- C, 3 sheets.

(7) Grievance Redressal of Ombudsman, 1 sheet.

(8)  Xerox copy of the Judgment decided by High Court of Odisha on August 6 2009, 2 sheets.

(9) Decision of National Commission on 06.06.1991, 3 sheets.

OBSERVATION

We have already perused the complaint & the documents filed by the complainant as well as the written version of the O.Ps. They have not filed any relevant document on behalf of them to defend the complaint. It is also an admitted fact that by the O.Ps the complainant is the nominee of the deceased Subash Chandra Sahoo who was his father. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased had initiated the LIC policy vide policy Nos. 587821367 on dt. 08.08.2011 & 587821089 on dt. 20.05.2011 under “Salary Savings Scheme. The father of the complainant had taken his last breath at Bhubaneswar on dt. 06.02.2013. The deceased Subhas Chandra Sahoo died by Heart Attack during his service period. The complainant is the nominee of his father in the aforesaid policy. After the death of his father the complainant claims the assured amount by submitting representation before all the Ops. The OP No-1 & 2 have repudiated his claim alleging that he had suppressed the facts. So u/s 45 of insurance Act the complainant is not entitled to the claim of the assured amount in respect of the aforesaid policy Vid Nos-587821367 & 587821089. They also advised to the complainant to prefer an appeal before the OP No-3. The complainant also preferred the appeal before the OP No-3 which was subsequently the appeal was rejected by the OP No-3. The OP No-3 also has not clarified the cause of the rejection of the appeal and the repudiation of the claim. As result of which the complainant has preferred this complaint before the DCDRF, Bhadrak.

 Going through the complaint and the W/V we have found that the complainant has chosen a wrong Forum to file her complainant with regard to the deficiency of service against the O.Ps. All the Ops of this case belong to beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. The OP No-1 belongs to the place where the policy was opened is situated at Bhubaneswar. The deceased was living there at the time of service and death also. The complainant should have chosen the Forum to file his complaint at Bhubaneswar DCDRF, Otherwise he could have preferred to file for complaint at Cuttack the office of the OP NO-2 but he has not done so. The settled principle of law if that the complainant should have obtained permission from the Branch Manager, office of the LIC, Bhadrak or he must have been impleaded as a party to this case. As the cause of action has arisen under the territorial jurisdiction of OP No. 1. In this context Hon’ble Apex court has in the matter of M/s Sonic Surgical Vrs National Insurance Company Ltd IV(2009) CPJ 40 (SC). The DCDRF, Bhadrak has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint to merits Solvochen intermediates Pvt. Ltd.V. Boilertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd, 1992(II) CPR 322.  

 Hence we are not inclined to interfere in to the matter and issues of this case. We are in opinions that the present complaint is barred by territorial jurisdiction, as well as it is not fit to be adjudicated on merit. Hence it is ordered:-     

ORDER

The complaint is and the same be dismissed barred by territorial jurisdiction without merit. The complainant is at liberty to initiate the same complainant before the proper territorial jurisdiction with fresh cause of action within 30 days on receipt of this order.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 13th November, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.