DATE OF FILING : 04-09-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 24-09-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 21-10-2014.
Ajit Ghosh,
son of late Banik Ghosh,
village Ghonashyampur, P.O. Jagolgorj, P.S. Jangipara,
District – Hooghly.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
( subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India ),
Kolkata Division Unit No. 511700,
4, Mango Lane (2nd floor ),
Kolkata – 700001,
represented by its Divisional Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Howrah Divisional Office 512200,
Madhusudan Apartment, 2nd floor,
P-18, Dobson Lane,
Howrah- 711101.---------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
3. The Branch Manager,
c/o. Golden Trust Financial Services,
Unit No. 512200, Madhusudan Apartment,
P-18, Dobson Lane, Howrah,
PIN – 711101. ---------------------------------------------------Proforma opposite party.
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
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to release the insured amount of Rs. 5 lakhs together with compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs and litigation costs as the o.ps. in spite of accidental death of the policy holder Prasanta Ghosh who was a field worker/ friend category under the proforma o.p. no. 3.
2. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in their written version contended interalia that the case is not maintainable as the complainant did not file proper documents to justify the claim regarding friends category or field worker.
3. The o.p. no. 3 neither appeared nor filed any written version even after receiving the summons. Accordingly the case was heard ex parte against o.p.no. 3.
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. The death of Prasanta Ghosh, the policy holder, is not disputed by the o.p. no. 1 & 2. The sum assured is Rs. 5 lakhs. The o.p. no. 1 issued the policy certificate as per the MOU with the o.p. no. 3 mentioning therein the name of Mr. Prasanta Ghosh, since deceased, as the person who was covered under the policy in question. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2, vide their letter dated 05-09-2005 and 09-11-2011, asked the complainant, the father of the deceased, to furnish the evidential documents regarding the status of the deceased person with o.p. no. 3. Here we take a pause. Was it not the sole responsibility of o.p. nos. 1 & 2, being the insurance company, to verify the status of the deceased person at the very beginning while issuing the policy document directly in the name of Prasanta Ghosh, since deceased. Now at the time of releasing the sum insured, they are taking all pleas which can never be tenable in the eye of law. The order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court passed in Order dated 06-07-1999 as mentioned in the letter dated 09-11-2011 issued by o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to the complainant, is very much within the knowledge of o.p. nos. 1 & 2. So it was entirely the responsibility of o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to verify the relationship of the deceased person with o.p. no. 3. As a common man, Prasanta Ghosh, since deceased can never be expected to know all the pros and cones of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s Order. Whether a friend or field worker, Prasanta Ghosh, since deceased, was provided with an insurance coverage by o.p. nos. 1 & 2. And in the event of death of Gita Rani Ghosh, the mother of Prasanta Ghosh, the instant complainant, being Ajit Ghosh becomes the legitimate claimant of the sum assured under the policy document in question. And the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 had withheld the release of such fund in favour of the complainant, Ajit Ghosh, the father of Prasanta Ghosh, since deceased, arbitrarily which should never be allowed to be perpetuated. We have also seen the letter dated 16-11-2011 written by o.p. no. 3 to o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and gone through the paragraph no. 3 of the letter, wherefrom it is crystal clear that Prasanta Ghosh, since deceased, was very much covered under the policy in question. Accordingly we hold o.p. nos. 1 & 2 as deficient in providing service to the complainant and it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant should be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 308 of 2013 ( HDF 308 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed ex parte without costs against o.p. no. 3.
The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are directed jointly and severally to release the sum insured of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant within 1 month from this order.
The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within 1 month from this order.
That the o.p. nos. 1& 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the entire decreetal amount of Rs. 5,06,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization.
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.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( P. K. Chatterjee)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
