DATE OF DISPOSAL: 06.12.2023

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

      The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Commission. 

2. The complainant is the husband of late Sunita Rani Sahu and hence is the legal nominee of the policy of insurance. Late Sunita Rani Sahu was working as financial consultant under Code No. 60374643 with effect from 01.04.2017 which has been reflected in e-mail dated 10.08.2017.  As per the circular communicated by the O.Ps, the Financial Consultant is entitled to get additional earning and financial protections i.e. Insurance coverage for health Rs. 1,00,000/-, Group Insurance Rs.10,00,000/- and accidental coverage Rs.3 lakhs. While the matter stood thus, the wife of the complainant late Sunita Rani Sahu died on 28.04.2017 suddenly heart attack. After the death of the wife of the complainant, late Sunita Rani Sahu, the complainant submitted death for payment of Insurance coverage of Rs. 10 lakh. The complainant sent advocate notice on 22.06.2018 for early payments of insurance coverage of Rs.10 lakh. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay insurance coverage of Rs.10.00 lakh, Compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.7500/- in the best interest of justice.

3. The Opposite Parties filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the present case pertains to Industrial Dispute and not a consumer dispute. Late Sunita Sahu was an employee of the company however, she was not enrolled under the Group term plan therefore the complainant is not entitled for any amount claimed. The wife of the complainant late Sunita Rani Sahu was associated with the O.Ps as a Financial Consultant in Berhampur, Odisha (FC code- 60374643) during 2016-17. On 11.08.2017 an email was send by the Training Manager, wherein it was stated that the company has confirmed her post with effect from 01.04.2017 on the basis of her sincere work and satisfactory performance. Smt. Sunita Rani Sahu was eligible for all the benefits (additional earning and financial protections) as per “Revised Compensation structure and career progression” which is mentioned in the document called “Agency Manager Program 2016-17 which is totally false. Late Sunita Rani Sahu was never informed that she was enrolled in Group Term policy. The complainant my please be put to strict proof of the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering O.Ps and the Company is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the complainant under the subject policy and the complaint needs to be dismissed out rightly. She was confirmed as Financial Consultant w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and the enrolment was under process. She was not enrolled under the Group Term Cover. Therefore no amount becomes payable to the complainant. The present dispute is not a consumer dispute rather it comes under purview of Industrial disputes which cannot be decided by this Hon’ble Forum being beyond its jurisdiction. Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

4. Both the parties are found absent on the date fixed for hearing. On perusal of case record it is found that, the complainant is absent in the Commission consistently and no steps taken in any point of time since 21.03.2022. However, we perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument and documents available in the case record. It is manifest that, the opposite parties has confirmed the deceased Sunita Rani Sahu Code No. 60374643was associated with the opposite parties from 12.12.2016 as an External Financial Consultant (not licensed with Exide Life) but she was not enrolled under the Group Term Insurance.

The complainant failed to substantiate the case that,the Training Manager of the opposite parties confirmed the post of the Late Sunita Rani Sahuwith effect from 01.04.2017 which has been reflected in e-mail dated 10.08.2017. As per the circular communicated by the O.Ps, the Financial Consultant is entitled to get additional earning and financial protections i.e. Insurance coverage for health Rs. 1,00,000/-, Group Insurance Rs.10,00,000/- and accidental coverage Rs.3 lakhs.  The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his case.

Further it is apparent from the case record that, the complaint is beyond jurisdiction and not maintainable as the wife of the Complainant was an employee of the opposite parties. The complainant being husband of the Late Sunita Rani Sahu is failed prove in his credit that he is a consumer in accordance to the definition of consumer under Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is reads as follows –

Section 2(1)(d)(ii) in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ¹² [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person ¹³ [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

And the complainant also failed to substantiate that there is any deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties under Sec.2(1)(g) of the Act, 1986 which reads as follows:-

Section 2(1)(g) in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

(g) “Deficiency”means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;

Most importantly, there was no cause of action arose against the present opposite parties. It is apparent from the record that,  the wife of the complainant was the employee of the opposite parties not the consumer of the opposite parties and whatever benefits she got was under the code of the employees of the opposite parties company. The law is well settled that, any dispute between the employer and employee is come under the jurisdiction of the Labour Court being an Industrial dispute.

Hence in our considered view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

In the result we dismiss the case. No order as to cost and compensation. The complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before competent Court of law and he may avail the benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 in the best interest of justice.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

            A certified copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the consumer protection act, 2019 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this commission.

          The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this judgment.

Pronounced on 06.12.2023.