Presented by Sri P.N.Dash, President .

The Complainant filed a complaint case on Dt.16/09/2011 against the Opposite Parties for realization of L.I.C. Claim as a nominee on behalf of his deceased wife who died on Dt.11/01/2009 due to a sudden heart attack along with compensation for the harassment he suffered due to delayed settlement of dues by the Opposite Parties on Dt.08/10/2011 to an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only along with the equitable litigation cost from the Opposite Parties. He submitted relevant documents like medical report, death report, L.I.C. premium receipt, pleader notice to the Opposite Parties, postal receipts of the letter voter identity card of policy holder and other particulars and the same were verified and found to be true and also admitted by the Opposite Parties.

The case of the Opposite Parties are that, they jointly and severally bear the responsibilities having one cause. According to the Opposite Parties the death compensation claim of the Complainant is an early claim having the transaction between them continued for one year and twenty six days. According to the provision and rule of L.I.C. an inquiry about the cause and genuinity of death is a must prior to the final death claim settlement and for that cause the Opposite Parties through Divisional Authority had requested the nominee to produce the treatment particulars of the policy holder from January-2006 to January-2009 for an investigation about death and health hazards prior to three years before death of the policy holder but the Complainant has not responded to that yet. Later on the ground of sympathy the Opposite Parties granted the death claim dues of the Complainant and finally settled the matter to the claim amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only on Dt.08/10/2011 and sent the due bank cheque to the Complainant. According to the Opposite Parties no deficiency in service is committed on behalf of them.

Heard the counsels and perused the record and the Forum comes to such findings that:-

1) The Complainant is the customer of the Opposite Parties, hence a consumer under this act and entitled to file the case.

2) The 'nominee' of the deceased policy holder of L.I.C. is competent enough to claim the death claim amount from the Opposite Parties. Law is well settled about it.

3) The case is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum and within the limitation of time to file the case. Opposite Parties submission before the Forum about barred by time limitation of the case is not tenable as because it is the prime duty of the Opposite Parties to settle the matter in case of a death claim on their behalf sou-mottu.

4) About the policy, genuinity of policy holder, death of policy holder, premium amount deposits till to the recent prior to the death of the deceased policy holder are all admitted by the Opposite Parties hence need no probe. The dispute between both the Parties lies about the delay settlement by the Opposite Parties and harassment by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant during that period by not settled the claim. In this case, the Complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding his harassment by the Opposite Parties so also failed to prove it at the Forum orally by adducing substantial evidences to that effect. His filing of case and sending of pleader notice to the Opposite Parties at a delayed stage also not fully explained by him. Similarly the Opposite Parties have also not fully explained that whether the health datas of the deceased is necessary up to a period of three years prior to her death in a death claim and is it mandatory in case of the nominee of the deceased to supply the relevant medical documents to that effect. It the Opposite Parties have settled the death claim at a belated stage on Dt.08/10/2011 after receiving the pleader notice form the Complainant with diligence and filing for the same through a case by the Complainant still then they prefered to contest the case till to the end. It shows the tendency and behavior of the Opposite Parties appearing not to be good. Malafide intention and mensreatic tendency for harassment is apparent in their behavior and it is a right cause for a deficiency in their service towards the Complainant. Myocardial infarction or sudden cardiac arrest, where a sudden death without availing any medical treatment having damages of heart valves leading to a pathological death is a paramount truth in medical science, which happened in the case of the deceased of this case need no investigation or probe of health hazards prior to three years of her death. The pleading stated the thing and it was not specifically challenged by the Opposite Parties during the course of trial. The Opposite Parties neither produced any documentary evidence nor orally submitted that it is not a case of sudden death occurred due to a cardiac arrest. They also failed to produce any substantial evidence regarding the previous treatment of heart disease by the deceased prior to her death through any deposition. In that respect onus lies on the Opposite Parties but they failed to discharge it.

Complainant stated in his pleading that the deceased was treated at the Samaleswari Nursing Home, Burla for the first and last time during the period of two days from Dt.10/01/2009 to Dt.11/01/2009 where she died on Dt.11/01/2009. So the plea of the Opposite Parties regading submission of medical datas of that period or prior to that period does not arises, as because the Opposite Parties admitted the death and treatment of the Complainant there in their version.

5) For an investigation by the Opposite Parties in the death claim of the Complainant three months time is sufficient in an early settlement of claim and it should be sou mottu initiated by the Opposite Parties. The period of availing intimation by the Opposite Parties are excluded from this period subject to prove. The Opposite Parties neither in their versions nor at the time of trial of the case stated that for the long period Dt.11/01/2009 (date of death of the policy holder) to Dt.16/09/2011 (date of filing the case) they were unaware about the death of the policy holder. No documentary evidence is submitted by the Opposite Parties regarding this matter. So presumption arises that the Opposite Parties received the information at earliest or at a belated stage but prior to the filing of the case. The due date of premium deposit falls after 22(twenty two) days of the death of the deceased i.e. on Dt.01/02/2009 fallowed by another one month grace in that respect the Opposite Parties must have knew about the death of the Complainant, latest on Dt.01/06/2009 and three months since then for enquiring etc. official procedures. Still then the Opposite Parties have not initiated to settle the matter of death claim till to the filing of the pleader notice by the Complainant on Dt.26/07/2011 and contested the case till to the end. Presumption also lies that the Complainant has must agitated the matter before the Opposite Parties just after the death of his wife, the policy holder on the stipulated date of deposite of premium amount or within three months since then. So presumption lies on harassment also by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant. But all those matters are of presumptions without any concrete proofs. Hence, the Forum imposed an interest on the principal claimed amount of that period on the Opposite parties in form of compensation for a better adjudication of the case.

Finally, the Forum ordered that, as the Complainant has availed the principal claimed amount already, the Opposite Parties has to pay to the Complainant the interest of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as 9%(nine percent) per annum from Dt.01/06/2009 to Dt.30/09/2011 (date of payment of the cheque) along with Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only litigation cost to the Complainant within one month from the date of Order, failing which 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum is to be imposed on the Opposite Parties on the total amount till to the actual date of realization.

The case is disposed of accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

          I agree,                                                                       I agree,                                                                 

(Sri Pramath Nath Dash)                                              (Mrs Anjali Behera)

     P r e s i d e n t.                                                              M e m b e r.