DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

                                                        Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President

                                                                2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member

                                                                3. Afsara Begum, Member

Dated the 25^th  day of  May  2019

C.D.Case No.77 of 2018

1. Gopabandhu Consumer Organsation

            Represented by it’s secretary –

            Sri  Prasanta Kumar Panda,

            At- nKhatanagar , Po- Jamujhadi , Via/Ps- Simulia

            Dist- Balasore-756126   

1. Smt. Ratnamani Nayak , W/O Late Sudarsan Nayak

            At- Sunguda, Po- Rudhunga   Via/Ps- Simulia

            Dist- Balasore-756126   

                                                                                  .................Petitioners

                                                  (Versus)

1. The  State Legal Service Authority Odisha

Represented by it’s Service Authority

Odisha State Legal Service Authority

S.O Quarter No.20 , Cantonment Road

Cuttack , 753001.

1. The  ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Bhadrak Branch

At/po/Dist – Bhadrak, 75100.

                                                                     ………………  Opp. Parties.

For the Complainant:  Sri  N.Mishra  (Authorized representative)

For the Opp.Party No.1   :  Ex- parte.

For the Opp.Party No.2   :  Sri Ananda Sankar Das , Advocate & Associates.

Date of hearing        : 20.03.2019

Date of order            : 25.05.2019

SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT

This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainants against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service .

           The background facts disclosed in the complaints are to the effect that insured deceased Sudarsan Nayak , the husband  of the complainant, obtained an ICICI Prudential life Insurance Policy bearing No. 11158366 from the O.P No.2 for a sum of assured of Rs 300000/-. The date of commencement of the policy was 30.01.2009   for a period of  10 years  with  yearly  premium. The policy covers death benefit as well as critical illness benefit. On 07.04.2012 late Sudarshan Nayak Was hospitalized for kidney failure and during the subsistence of the policy, on 14.07.2012  the life insured was died. Nominee of the policy persuaded the O.P insurer  Co. ltd  for claim of her deceased husband  but O.P on 23.07.2012 repudiated the claim . The complainants have therefore prayed for direction to the O.Pno.2  to settle the claims under the policies bearing  No. 11158366 in her favour and to pay Rs.3,00,000/-, the sum assured under policy  and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment for   deficiency of  service on the part of O.P No.2.

 Notices were issued to both O.Ps. O.P No.1 does not prefer to appear before this Forum , hence set ex-parte.  Though O.P No.2 was set ex -parte on 22.02.2019 due to non appearance in due time ,  he had field his written version  on 8.5.2019 without a set -a-side petition and also did  not  move the petition. Hence the written version filed by O.P No. 2 was not taken in to consideration & the case  wasd  heard ex-pate form complainant.

Undoubtedly and undisputedly the complainant being the nominee and the wife  of the deceased insured  Sudarshan Nayak  is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1) (d)(ii) of C. P. Act , 1986  , as such  the Forum has  jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

                               The consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") was enacted inter-alia to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers. The applicability of the said act in the instant case is not in dispute. The dispute between the parties is admittedly 'the Consumer Dispute' within the meaning of Section-2(e) of the act. It is further not  disputed  by the parties to this case that there has been a "Deficiency of service".

"Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been under-taken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service".

                       It is cited in volume No. 34 (1992) OJD-104-Odisha that “Inaction & silence are serious type of deficiency”. As the O.Ps have not filed any written versions and carelessly avoided their appearance in this Forum. Hence the claims of the complainant stand allowed absolutely.

2003-CLT- Vol-96P 15 Para-4  in C.D Case Appeal No. 37 of 2002 SCDRC Odisha held that –

“ Absence of w/v commission is bound to accept the uncontroverted consequently the dispute must be succeed and allowed.”

2013(1) CPR-507-NC     -  “In case w/s not field after several opportunities. It has no defense on merit.”         

               . Hence it is ordered:

                                                 O R D E R

                                       The complaint be and the same is  allowed on contest  against the O.P No.2 . O.PNo.2  is  here by directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/-( the sum assured under policy ) under the policies bearing  No. 11158366 and to pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only)  towards  compensation  for mental agony and harassment  suffered  by the complainant as well as to pay  Rs.1000/-  towards  the cost of  litigation  within  one month hence .

                       This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25^th  day of  May  2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum .