Haryana

Sonipat

CC/380/2015

Smt. Munish Devi W/o Late Sandeep Vats - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Life Insurance Corporation India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Bhardwaj

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.380 of 2015

                                Instituted on:05.11.2015

                                Date of order:21.07.2016

 

Smt. Munesh Devi widow of late Sandeep Vats, resident of village Teha, tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat.

 

                                           ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

1.LIC of India, office Jeevan Jyoti, Sector 15, Sonepat.

2.The Regional Manager, Zone Review Committee, Zonal office Jiwan Bharti Tower II, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-01.

3.The Divisional Office, LIC of India Ltd., office sector 7, Karnal through Divisional Manager.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Ashok Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

Shri RP Antil, Adv.for respondent no.1 to 3.        

 

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that her husband Shri Sandeep Vats has obtained  life insurance policy covering death claim/due to accidental death/murder or in any other manner vide policy no.177374782 for Rs.5 lacs.  Unfortunately, the deceased life assured was murdered on 1.2.2011 and FIR no.35 dated 1.2.2011 was registered with PS Ganaur u/s 452/302/34 IPC.  The complainant being the nominee has applied for the release of the claim amount to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, but the respondents have informed the complainant that the accidental benefit is regretted as her husband was intentionally murdered.  The complainant has alleged the repudiation of her claim to be wrong and illegal. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the husband of the complainant has obtained the policy no.177374782 for Rs.5 lacs.  But they have denied the fact that the policy cover the murder death.  Infact the policy in question covers in case of accidental death of the life assured.  The complainant has applied for the release of the claim amount.  The competent authority has admitted the liability of basic claim and the respondents have already paid the death claim of Rs.5,20,500/- vide cheque no.0059461 dated 23.3.2011  to the complainant.  The accidental benefit claim was repudiated by the competent authority of the respondents as the cause of death was intentional murder which is not an accident.  So, the complainant was not entitled to get the accidental benefit claim from the respondents.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the complainant and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard  ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents wrongly and illegally have not made the payment of claim amount under accidental benefit claim to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the husband of the complainant has obtained the policy no.177374782 for Rs.5 lacs.  But they have denied the fact that the policy cover the murder death.  Infact the policy in question covers in case of accidental death of the life assured.  The complainant has applied for the release of the claim amount.  The competent authority has admitted the liability of basic claim and the respondents have already paid the death claim of Rs.5,20,500/- vide cheque no.0059461 dated 23.3.2011  to the complainant.  The accidental benefit claim was repudiated by the competent authority of the respondents as the cause of death was intentional murder which is not an accident.  So, the complainant was not entitled to get the accidental benefit claim from the respondents.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the complainant.

          In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case law titled as N.Kabilan Vs. New India Ass. Co. Ltd. CLT 2015(2) Page 525 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that Accident-Murder-Held-Since insured was murdered and did not die because of injury sustained in an accident, his death is not covered under the insurance policy, which covers only the accidental death or the injury.

          Similar is the position in the case in hand, because the insured was murdered and he did not die because of any injury sustained by him in an accident. So, keeping in view the above said law of the Hon’ble National Commission, it is held that the death of the insured is not covered under the insurance policy which covers only the accidental death or the injury.  Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get the accidental benefit claim from the respondents in respect of the policy in question.  Accordingly, we find no force in the present complaint since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (J.L.Gupta Member)(Nagender Singh-President)

                                          DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:21.07.2016