Ld Advocates are present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission in 3 pages 2 separate sheet of papers.
BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant case is thatthe complainant has permanent residence within this Jurisdiction. The Complainant’s husband BHagirath Ballabh S/O Sri Lakshmikanta Ballabh had a savings Bank A/C being No. 1636010256193with O.P- NO. 1. The Complainant’s husband took a Personal Accident policy with the request of O.P. No.1 from the O.P. No.2 whose all arrangement was done by O.P. NO.1. The Policy No. is 17-2422-64010000080 and Rs. 1,00,000/- was the sum assured in which the Complainant was the nominee. But unfortunately the Complainant’s husband Bhagirath Ballabh died on 12.04.2015 due to Road Traffic Accident by vehicle No. WB 29A-4070 during accident he got touched with an electric line at near Dakshin Narikelda Gram Panchyet office on NH41 on 27.03.2015 at 11:30 P.M. and his P.M. was done at Tamluk District Hospital. Nandakumar P.S. Case NO. 274/2015 dt. 16.06.2015 U/S 279/338/304A has been started. The Complainant as nominee of said insurance policy demanded the said insurance claim, but till now the Opposite Parties did not pay the same forwhich the Complainant has been suffering from mental agony and till now the O.P. NO.2 did not repudiate the said insurance claim and for that reason the cause of action of this case is continuing one. Therefore, the complainant prayed for directing the ops to pay the said insurance claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant with 10% interest from 12.04.2015 till realization, to pay Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony, to pay a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for conduct of this case, to give other relief to the complainant which your this commission may deem fit and proper.
Notices were duly served upon the ops 1 & 2. The op-1 & op-2 have contested the case by filing two separate written versions.In its written version op-1 has stated inter alia that the Complainant’s husband Bhagirath Ballabh had opened a savings account in the bank on 20.08.2014 being A/C No. 1636010256193. Bhagirath Ballabh took a personal accident policy from Opposite Party No.2 for a sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- being policy No. 17-2422-64010000080 and in said policy complainant was the nominee. The 1st premium for the policy of Rs. 17/- was deducted on 10.07.2015 from the above mentioned savings account and 2nd premium of Rs. 17/- was deducted on 30.07.2016 and the same was immediately paid to the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant informed about the death of her husband Bhagirath Ballabh (insured) to the Bank on 15.05.2017. But bhagirath Ballabh died on 12.04.2015. The Complainant filed a claim from insurance on 26.02.2018 duly forwarded by this Opposite Party to Opposite Party NO.2 .The Opposite Party No.2 rejected the insurance claim stating that 1st premium was deducted on 10.07.2015 while the insured person had already died on 12.04.2015 (3 months back) and hence the insurance cover was void.The Complainant kept the bank in the dark regarding the account holders death for 2 years and 1 month which resulted in the deduction of premium of policy which the account holder had opted for previously, even after his death. Present case is barred by limitation as per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From the documents as filed by the complainant it is found that complainant has filed the instant complainant on 11.05.2018 and in the complainant she stated the date of cause of action arose on 12.04.2015. From the said facts it is proved that she has instituted the instant case beyond the statutory period of limitation of 2 years. So, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
And the O.P. No. 2 has stated inter alia in its written version that the accident had occurred on 27.03.2015 at 11:30 P.M. and the Complainant husband died on 12.04.2015. The Complaint was intimated at Purba Medinipur P.S. on 22.06.2015 after a lapse of 70 days without any reasonable justification for such delay.The Complainant has filed the instant complaint petition on 11.05.2018, i.e. after a passage of 3 years 1 month; 1126 days from the cause of action which arose on 12.04.2015 (death of the Complainant’s husband) which indicates that the instant claim is barred by limitation as per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 .It is further submitted that there is no claim registered with the O.P. Insurance Company, therefore, the question of deficiency in service does not arise with respect to O.P. Insurance Company.The Complainant does not have any cause of action against this O.P. Insurance Company on grounds of deficiency in service till date. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable in law.
Points for determination are:
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law? 2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have gone through the materials on record and anxiously considered the contentions of both parties. On scanning the complaint supported by affidavit and evidence on record ,we find that the complainant has not stated specifically on which particular date the complainant raised or submitted her claim with the op-2 insurance company. There is no received copy of the claim petition or any postal receipt to show that at any point of time the claim was lodged with the op-2 by complainant herself.On going through the version of op-1 it is observed that the Complainant’s husband BhagirathBallabh had opened a savings account in the bank (op-1) on 20.08.2014 being A/C No. 1636010256193. BhagirathBallabh took a personal accident policy from Opposite Party No.2 for a sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- being policy No. 17-2422-64010000080 and in said policy complainant was the nominee. The 1st premium for the policy of Rs. 17/- was deducted on 10.07.2015 from the above mentioned savings account and 2nd premium of Rs. 17/- was deducted on 30.07.2016 and the same was immediately paid to the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant informed about the death of her husband BhagirathBallabh (insured) to the Bank on 15.05.2017. But bhagirathBallabh died on 12.04.2015 before deduction of first premium. The Complainant filed a claim form insurance on 26.02.2018 duly forwarded by the Opposite Party-1 to Opposite Party NO.2 .The Opposite Party No.2 rejected the insurance claim stating that 1st premium was deducted on 10.07.2015 while the insured person had already died on 12.04.2015 (3 months back) stating the insurance cover was void.
It appears that as per version of the op-1 the Complainant filed a claim form for insurance on 26.02.2018 duly forwarded by Opposite Party-1 to Opposite Party No.2 .The Opposite Party No.2 rejected the insurance claim stating that 1st premium was deducted on 10.07.2015 while the insured person had already died on 12.04.2015. Here , the op-1 repudiated the claim based on the application dated 26.02.2018 forwarded by op-1 as such the complaint will not fall within the mischief of thelimitation as per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the case has been filed within 2 years from that date ie26.02.2018. The instant complaint is maintainable in its present form and in law.
However, there is substance in the contentions of ops that the 1st premium for the policy of Rs. 17/- was deducted on 10.07.2015 from the above mentioned savings account and 2nd premium of Rs. 17/- was deducted on 30.07.2016whereas the Complainant informed about the death of her husband Bhagirath Ballabh (insured) to the Bank on 15.05.2017. Therefore it is very much crystal clear that insurance premium were paid after the death of the so called insured .Had the complainant informed the incident of death of Bhagirath Ballabh to the op-1,the op-1 must not deduct the said two premiums. According to the op-1 ,the Opposite Party No.2 rejected the insurance claim stating that 1st premium was deducted on 10.07.2015 while the insured person had already died on 12.04.2015 (3 months back) and hence the insurance cover was void. The complainant has no other document to rebut the said version of op-1. The complainant has failed to file any insurance certificate to justify her claim. The husband of the claimant died before the getting effect of the Insurance policy. Mere issuance of Policy does not create the right of benefit; the premium of insurance should be given or credited in due time. Premium paid in the name of dead person is not a valid deposit of premium. In all practical purpose the husband of the complainant had got no valid personal accident policy in his life time .The Insurance policy, if at all created, was void ab initio. As there was no valid insurance policy with the op-2 in favour of the husband of the complainant during his life time , the question of deficiency in service by any of the ops does not arise.Resultantly, the complainant is not entitled get any relief in this case.
Both the points are disposed of accordingly.
Thus, the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/207 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs is passed.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the parties free of cost.
