BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES RESRESSAL FORUM FATEHABAD
Consumer Complaint No.262/2016
Date of Institution: 10.10.2016
Date of Order : 28.09.2017
Santosh widow of Sh.Bhadur Chan S/o Jai Singh, R/o 412/4 Near Saini Mohalla, Chandigarh Road Thana Tehsil Thana District Fatehabad, Haryana, Pin-125120.
……..Complainant
Vs.
- The New India Insurance Company Ltd.,Timber Market, Railway Road Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad, Haryana Through its Branch Manager.
- The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Essel Chambers, 3rd Floor, Karangalpady, Manglore-57500, Phone No.0834-2497277 Through its Senior Branch Manager.
- Corporation Bank, Chandigarh Road, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad Haryana, through its Branch Manager.
………Opposite parties
Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Mrs.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Argued by: Sh.Anil Saini, Adv. for the complainant
Sh.N.D. Mittal Adv. for the Ops 1 & 2
Sh.Ritesh Singla Adv. for Op No.3
Order:
The complainant has filed the present complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that husband of the complainant late Sh.Bahadur Chand was having a Saving Bank Account in the bank of opposite party no.3. Sh.Bahadur Chand opted a insurance policy under P.M JAN SURAKSHA BIMA YOJNA thorugh Op no.3 and appointed the complainant as a nominee in the said insurance policy. It is
…..2….. Santosh Vs. NIAC
further submitted that on 28.10.2015, the husband of the complainant had gone to grain market, Tohana for labour work but did not return till the late night. On 2.11.2015 complainant received an information that the dead body of her husband was found in a canal in Soma City, Fatehabad. The post mortem on the dead body of Bahadur Chand was conducted on 2.11.2015 by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Fatehabad through the concerned police station. In the post mortem report dated 2.11.2015 the doctor who conducted the post mortem opined that death has been caused on account of drowning. Thereafter, all the requisite documents were furnished by the complainant to the Insurance Company along with post mortem report. However, till today, insurance benefits on account of death of her husband have not been disbursed to her. This amounts to deficiency on the part of the Ops in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for payment of insurance benefit along with compensation as the complainant has suffered mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, the Ops No.1 & 2 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written version wherein various preliminary objections have been raised; that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; that this Forum at Fatehabad has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the present complaint is pre-mature and has been filed without furnishing the requisite documents and without waiting the
……3….. Santosh Vs. NIAC
settlement of claim. In reply on merits, it is admitted that the insurance policy was issued to the husband of the complainant by the answering Ops. It is further submitted that original/notarized FIR and Post Mortem report are mandatory for deciding the claim under the Personal Accident Policy. In the present case, the Op No.2 had sought from the complainant the English translation of DDR, PMR and police documents pertaining to the case and final closure report from Op No.3. A clarification was also sought from the complainant regarding the contradiction in the time and date of death of DLA between the opinion of the Doctor in the PMR and the statement made by son of the DLA before the police. It is further submitted that the above said documents and information were not furnished by the complainant. Therefore, the claim of the complainant could not be settled/decided. A Prayer for dismissal of the complainant has been made mainly on the ground that the same is pre-mature.
2. Op No.3 also filed his written version and admitted that the DLA was Account Holder in the bank of Op No.3. However, the remaining averments made in the complaint were denied. It is also submitterd that the insurance was issued to the DLA by Ops No.1 & 2 and as such the complainant has no cause of action against the Op No.3 and as such Op no.3 is unnecessary party.
3. In evidence, the complainant has filed her affidavit as Annexure CW1, wherein averments made in athe complaint has been testified. In
……4….. Santosh Vs., NIAC
support of her case, the complainant tendered documents as Annexure C1 and closed her evidence. On the other hand, the Ops NO.1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit as Annexure RW1 and documents as Annexure R2 to R13. Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit as Annexure R1 and thereafter, Ops closed their evidence.
4. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings, afdfidavits and documents placed on file.
5. A perusal of the file reveals that the claim of the complainant has not been settled/decided. It is the case of the Ops No.1 & 2 that the Insurance claim of the complainant could not be settled because the complainant did not furnish the required documents and information/clarification and rather approached this Forum. A perusal of case file reveals that there is no document on the file to prove that the complainant has furnished the above said documents and clarification or filed any response to the said queries.
6. Therefore, this Forum is of this considered opinion that the present complaint is pre-mature. So, we direct the complainant to furnish the documents to the Ops No.1 & 2 or file proper/appropriate reply to the queries raised by the Ops No.l & 2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and Ops No.1 & 2 are directed to take decision regarding
…5… Santosh Vs. NIAC
the claim of the complainant by passing a speaking order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the documents/reply. In case, the complainant is aggrieved with the decision to be taken by the Ops No.1 & 2 in that eventuality, the complainant will be at liberty to challenge the same before this Forum. With these directions, the present complaint is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as provided under the rules. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.28.09.2017
(R.S.Panghal) (Ansuya Bishnoi)
(RaghbirSingh) Member Member
President
