DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 26th day of October, 2017
C.D.Case No.38 of 2016
Smt. Parbati Sahu
W/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 : 26.10.2017
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR,PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint against the O.Ps in respect of the deficiency of service caused by them against the O.Ps are to effect that the complainant husband was an employee in the Govt. press situated at Bhubaneswar and on dt. 06.02.2013 he has taken his last berth. The O.Ps allured Late Subash Ch Sahu the husband of the complainant, proposing 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 20.12.2010 the husband of the complainant opened the policy named & styled as “Salary Savings Scheme” vide Policy No. 587009875 under the O.Ps. In the Policy No. 587009875 the each installments for payment was Rs 579/- vide proposal No. 19410 and the sum assured for Rs 75,000/-. The date of risk started from 31.12.2010 and the date of last payment was fixed on dt. 20.11.2022 and the maturity was agreed on 20.12.2022 the complainant is the nomine of her deceased husband. The complainant’s husband died by heart attack during his service period. After the death of the husband of the complainant, she duly approached the OP No. 1 for disbursement of the policy amount as she is the nomine of the policy holder and also submitted all the required documents to the OP No. 1 & 2 as they are the 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 the policy holders. But the OP No. 2 in a wrong view and misconception of facts and circumstances repudiated the claim of the policy hold on dt. 16.11.2015 vide his office REF: CD/OGSSS/CLAIM/AO dt. 16.11.2015 stating there in that the 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 effecting the proposal & the policies has been declared as null and void. 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 asked for the copy through RTI application, the O.Ps handed over an invisible copy of the 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.
1. Hence the complainant has prayed for the relief of giving direction to pay matured insured amount in policy No. 587009875 along with interest as for the plan of the insure policy.
2. The O.Ps be directed to pay the mature insured amount along with interest.
3. 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, 1sheet.
(6) Xerox copy of police vide No. 587821089, Anx- C, 3 sheets.
(7) Grievance Redressal of Ombudsman, 1sheet.
(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 her husband. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased had initiated the LIC policy vide policy No. 587009875 on dt. 20.12.2010 under “Salary Savings Scheme. The husband of the complainant had taken his last brief at Bhubaneswar on dt. 06.02.2013. The diseased Subhas Chandra Sahoo died by Heart Attack during his service period. The complainant is the nominee of husband in the aforesaid policy after the death of her husband the complainant claim the assured amount by submitting representation before all the Ops. The OP No-1 & 2 have repudiated for claim alleging that she 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 No-587009875. They also advised to the complainant to prefer an appeal before the OP No-3. The complainant also prefer 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 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 OPs. All the Ops of this case are belong in to beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. The OP No-1 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 her complainant at Bhubaneswar DCDRF, Otherwise she could have preferred to file for complaint at Cuttack the office of the OP NO-2 but she has not done so. The present complainant does not attract the office of the OP No-1 & 2 at Bhadrak jurisdiction. The settled principle of law if that the complainant should have obtained permission from the Branch Manager, office of the LIC, Bhadrak before filing this case 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 other 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 complaint before the proper Forum having territorial jurisdiction with fresh cause of action within 30days on receipt of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 26th October, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Sri Raghunath Kar)
President
(Sri Basanta Kumar Mallick)
Member
Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Sri Raghunath Kar)
(Apsara Begam) President
Member
