Punjab

Faridkot

RBT/CC/24/5

Taro Bai - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Chahal

18 Sep 2024

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No.                 402 of 2021

RBT No:                          05  of 2024

Date of Institution:          04.10.2021

Date of Decision:             18.09.2024

 

Taro Bai, aged about 46 years, wife of Hansa Singh, resident of Village Mohakam Arian, Tehsil Jalalbad, District Fazilka.           ....Complainant

 

Versus

1. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company limited Branch, Mall Road, Ferozepur.
2. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company limited, SCO No. 72, Second Floor, Phase – 9, Mohali.                    ....OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

 

Quorum: Sh Rakesh Kumar Singla, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Manjinder Singh Chahal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

               Sh Bhagat Ram Arora, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

* * * * * * * *

(Rakesh Kumar Singla, President)

ORDER

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against  OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim of Rs.5

RBT No.05 of 2024

lacs on account of death of her husband and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Hansa Singh husband of complainant was insured with OPs under Bhagat Puran Singh Health Insurance Scheme. He was issued card Ex C-3 and as per insurance policy in the event of death of head of family, family is entitled for sum of Rs. 5 lacs. It is further submitted that during the subsistence of policy in question, husband of complainant was murdered on 20.02.2017 in respect of which, FIR No.0022 dated 20.02.2017 was got registered in Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka. Thereafter, complainant contacted OPs and also furnished all documents required for processing the death claim to the OPs, but they did not pay even a single penny on account of insurance claim for the death of her husband. Complainant made several requests to OPs to make payment of genuine insurance claim, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service. They have caused unnecessary harassment to her by not paying the genuine  claim on account of death of her husband and this act of OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant for which she has prayed for directions to OP to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation alongwith Rs.10,000/-as cost of litigation besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

RBT No.05 of 2024

3                                       The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 25.01.2022, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                             On receipt of the notice, OP-1 and 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is time barred by limitation of 2 years 7 months and is liable to be dismissed. It is brought before the Commission that death of husband of complainant occurred on 20.02.2017 and death certificate in this regard is issued on 04.03.2017. As per Consumer Protection Act, complaint was required to be filed within a period of 2 years, but complainant has filed the present complaint on 04.10.2021 that is after a delay of more than two years and seven months, which is much beyond the period of limitation. It is further averred that even no application for condonation of delay is filed by complainant. Moreover, present complaint is premature due to non submission of affidavit certified by Executive Magistrate for discrepancy in the name of father of deceased. Police Final Closure Report is also not provided as it was a case of murder. Further averred that complainant has neither submitted any proof regarding legal heirs of deceased, nor has furnished any documentary evidence to prove the fact that she is the nominee for receiving the insurance claim. Succession Certificate is also required to be produced that she is the only surviving legal heir of deceased Hansa Singh. It is

RBT No.05 of 2024

further averred that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in present case requiring lengthy and voluminous evidence and therefore, it is required to be relegated to the Civil Court for adjudication. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                             Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-8 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Bhushan Kumar Goyal Ex OP-1,2/1 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-1 and 2.

7                                                        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8                                              Ld Counsel for complainant has vehementally argued that being a member of Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojna having card Ex C-3 against policy in question, Hansa Singh husband of complainant was insured under this scheme. Said Hansa Singh

RBT No.05 of 2024

was murdered on 20.02.2017 in respect of which, FIR No.0022 dated 20.02.2017 was got registered in Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka and due intimation regarding death of her husband was also given by complainant to OPs. Complainant also furnished all documents required for processing the claim to Ops and also completed all required formalities, but till now, OPs have not cleared the genuine claim of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. She has stressed on document Ex C-1 to 8. On the other hand plea taken by OP-1 and 2 is that the present complaint is time barred as death of husband of complainant occurred on 20.02.2017 whereas complainant has filed the present complaint on 04.10.2021 that is much beyond the period of limitation. Second plea taken by Ops is that the present complaint filed by complainant is premature as complainant never submitted documents required for processing the claim on account of death of her husband. Duly certified affidavit by Executive Magistrate for discrepancy in the name of father of deceased Hansa Singh,  Police Final Closure Report regarding his murder alongwith Succession Certificate. Further averred that complainant has neither submitted any proof regarding legal heirs of deceased, nor has furnished any documentary evidence to prove the fact that she is the nominee for receiving the insurance claim. Succession

RBT No.05 of 2024

Certificate is also required to be produced that she is the only surviving legal heir of deceased Hansa Singh.

9                                             From the careful perusal of complaint filed by complainant, it is also transpired that complainant has not specified the period of insurance and ld counsel for complainant has also not produced any documentary evidence to prove the fact that death of husband of complainant occurred during the subsistence period of insurance policy in question. Nowhere in the entire complaint and during the proceedings of whole case, neither complainant nor his counsel uttered a single word about subsistence period or the period during which husband of complainant was insured with them.  Thorough scrutiny of entire evidence and documents placed on record, also does not help in bringing on record the validity of insurance period. Counsel for complainant has nothing to contradict this point.

10                                   After careful perusal of the record available on file and going through the evidence led by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant has not filed the present complaint within a period of two years from the date of death of her husband. Present complaint is beyond the limitation period and moreover, complainant has not furnished requisite documents mandatory for processing the claim to OPs like Police Final Closure Report in respect of murder of Hansa Singh and Succession Certificate to prove that only

RBT No.05 of 2024

 complainant is entitled to receive the insurance claim on account of death of her husband. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed.                      11                                     However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs.

12                                   Complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

 

13                                  Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission

Dated: 18.09.2024      

                                       (Param Pal Kaur)         (Rakesh Kumar Singla)             

                                      Member                          President