DATE OF FILING : 09-12-2011.
DATE OF S/R : 17-01-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 22-08-2012.
Smt. Rita Haldar,
w/o. late Tarak Haldar,
previously residing at village – Dakshin Chandmari,
P.O. Chandmari, District –Nadia,
presently residing at the house of
Narayan Chandra Biswas,
Dakshinpara ( near Manshatala ), More Pukurdhar,
P.O. Rishra, District – Hooghly,
PIN – 7122501. ----------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The Divisionla Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
( subsidiary of G.I.C.I.)
Howrah Division, Unit No. 3/220, Madhusudan Apartment,
Howrah B – 18 Dobson Lane,
Howrah – 711101.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
( subsidiary of G.I.C.I. )
Issuing Office Howrah Branch,
Unit No. 512200,
Madhusudan Apartment ( 2nd floor ),
P – 18, Dobson Lane,
Howrah – 7111 01.
3. M/S. Golden Trust Financial Service,
155, Lenin Sarani,
Kolkata – 700013. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
- The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant, Smt. Rita Haldar, the widow of the deceased policy holder late Tarak Haldar ( Policy No. being 47-30728 issued on 23-03-2000 ) has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to release the death claim benefit of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and litigation cost as the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 repudiated the claim on 14-07-2011.
2. The O.P. no. 3, Golden Trust Financial Services in their written version stated that they only collected the premium from the proposer and remitted the same to O.P. no. 2 ; that the settlement of the claim rests upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2.
3. The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 in their written version denied the material allegations made in the complaint and contended interalia that the death benefit cannot be awarded to the claimant as the deceased was a notorious person of the locality and a gang member of one infamous Sukha Mondal which is confirmed by the I/O in P.S. Case No. Kalyani, Nadia 49/2001 dated 06-03-2011.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. After going through the complaint and written versions of the O.Ps. and after having heard the ld. Lawyers of both sides and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the complaint we are of the view that the instant complaint must succeed owing to the following reasons :
( a ) Admittedly Tarak Haldar, since deceased insured his life with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and got a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy of the company being no. 47-30728 on 23-03-2000 covering any accidental injury or accidental death for Rs. 4 lacs. The proposal was accepted by the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 where the present complainant Rita Haldar is the nominee. Subsequently on 06-03-2001 Tarak Haldar was murdered by some miscreants and a police case being no. 49/2001 U/S 302/34 I.P.C. was started by Kalyani P.S., Nadia. The claim of Rita Haldar was repudiated on 14-07-2011 i.e., after long 10 years of the death of the policy holder on the ground that Tarak Haldar was a miscreant and as such the death benefit cannot be awarded to the complainant as it is barred by the provisions of the insurance company. This plea adopted by the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 is too fragile to merit acceptance. This is because the life insurance contract is unilateral contract inasmuch as the insurer makes an enforceable promise. The proposer had already performed his duty of payment of premium. If the first premium is paid, the insurer is bound to accept subsequent premium and to pay back the amount claimed when it arises, except on the ground of fraud. The policy itself issued by New India Assurance Company Ltd. states in no uncertain terms that “the risk covered his accidental death / loss of limbs / permanent total disablement for a overall capital sum insured of Rs. 4 lacs and nominee Rita Haldar, wife of the policy holder”. The reasoning put forward by the insurance authority in repudiating the claim of the complainant appears to us to be a high handed measure on the part of the O.P. nos. 1 & 2. The I/O cannot at all be the authority to give decision and judgment over the character and life style of Tarak Haldar since deceased.
( b ) The conduct adopted by the O.P. insurance company who conveniently picks up the default clause ( miscreants ) is not at all supportable from the point of view of humanity and law. We are to bear in mind that this Tarak Haldar who was murdered was the same and identical person who entered into the contract with respect to his insurance policy. The O.P. insurance company had sufficient opportunity to scrutinize his proposal whether he maintains an untoward life style or was an associate of an infamous gang leader. When his proposal was accepted and the policy was issued, the insurance company cannot have any other alternative than to release the death claim benefit.
( c ) In view of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 the insurer can repudiate the claim of a policy or proposal on the ground that a statement made in the proposal for insurance or in any report of a medical officer or referee or friend of the insured or any other documents leading the issue of the policy was inaccurate or false or policy holder knowing fully well that his statements was false, suppressed the material facts. In this case there was no suppression of fact from the side of the policy holder and the insurer with their fullest satisfaction issued the policy certificate and as such has no right to repudiate any valid policy after receiving the due premium. The conduct on the part of the O.P. insurance company adopted in this case can be designated as absolutely bad trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service.
( d ) A policy holder makes a policy of life insurance with death benefit keeping in mind that his family must not suffer financially in the event of his death. In the instant case the policy holder Tarak Haldar since deceased might have conceived the same consideration when entered into an agreement with the insurer with respect to the injury or death benefit. Therefore, it is the pious duty of the insurer to release the death benefit in favour of the complainant who has been facing acute financial crisis and is on the verge of starvation with her children. Arguably if it is confirmed that Tarak Haldar was a miscreant as per the sermon of the police authority, it is not established from the incident of his death that he received fatal injury during internecine fighting between gang leaders. On the contrary it is confirmed that he was dragged from his house by some unknown person being armed with fire arms and took him to the courtyard and shootted him down. Tarak expired on this spot. That he was murdered by some unknown miscreants with the help of fire arms cannot ipso facto proved that Tarak Haldar wa a miscreant and he was murdered as a sequel to earlier dispute. In these days when fire arms are still available, any commoner may meet such fate on trifle dispute. It is the normal tendency of the police to brand the disease, murdered by fire arms by some unknown persons, as a miscreant to cut short the matter of investigation. Therefore, opinion of the I/O that the disease Tarak Haldar was a gang member of Sukha Mandal cannot be accepted as sacrosanct and as sacred as holy scripture. Naturally we are not ready to accept the opinion of the I/O as a truth. Even if he was a member of any gang, he might not be a member of the same gang or a simple commoner when he entered into the contract with respect to the life insurance policy.
( e ) In summing up our observation we come into the conclusion that a valid policy existed when Tarak Haldar was murdered ; that the premium was accepted and policy certificate was issued by the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 ; that at the time of his brutal murder the policy was valid ; that the death claim form together with all relevant documents were submitted through the O.P. no. 3, an agent of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. So the reason assigned in repudiation of the claim cannot stand at all.
In the result the complaint succeeds.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 107 of 2011 ( HDF 107 of 2011 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against O.P. no. 3 without cost.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 be directed to release the insured sum of Rs. 4 lacs together with interest @ 12% from the date of submission of the claim form i.e. 16-08-2001 within 30 days from the date of this order.
The complainant is further entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental pain and agony caused by the O.P. nos. 1 & 2.
The complainant is further entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for prolonged harassment perpetrated by the O.P. nos. 1 & 2.
The complainant is entitled to the litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- from the o.p. nos. 1 & 2.
The o.ps. do pay the total compensation and litigation costs of Rs. 1,60,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
