Delhi

North East

CC/178/2021

Sh. Nanu Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 178/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Nanu Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Mansa R/o Village Rathaura, Distt. Baghpat, U.P Also at:- St. No. 8, Roshan Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Distt. North/East, Delhi-110094		Complainant
		Versus
		United India Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO 106, Commercial Complex Green Channal Road, Sector 16, Faridabad, Haryana DO 21 Faridabad 121002   Also at:- 202, 2nd Floor, Vardhman Plaza, Block C 2, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		30.11.21 27.09.23 02.02.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint against Opposite Party i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant’s son namely Vipin Kumar (now deceased) was working with Vedashree Enterprises Company. The said company procured policy No. 2221004218P104841813 in the name of deceased Vipin Kumar wherein the deceased Vipin Kumar had made the Complainant his nominee.  The son of Complainant got died due to accident. The Complainant gave information of death of his son to Vedashree Enterprises Ltd. The official of company informed Complainant that deceased is having an insurance policy and Complainant is the nominee of that insurance policy claim and also told that they had also intimated to United India Insurance Company (Opposite Party) about death of son of Complainant. The Complainant stated to have met with official of Opposite Party time and again for insurance claim but Opposite Party paid no heed to the request of Complainant. The Complainant visited Opposite Party and they got deposited some documents and gave Complainant a receiving dated 14.09.19 and Opposite Party asked for final report of FIR/ untrace report/status report to get the insurance claim. The Complainant moved an application for getting untraced report. The IO of the case filed status report on 18.01.20 and the hon’ble court passed an order on 25.01.20 and Complainant got certified copy from the hon’ble court on 06.02.20 and time and again visited the court then on 06.02.20 the Complainant got the certified copy of the final report of the FIR and deposited the same in office of his son but they lingered on the matter. The Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 13.08.21 through DTDC courier on 14.08.21 but of no use. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay the insurance amount with interest to the father of the deceased as well as nominee in the documents and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment. Case of the Opposite Party
2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement taking the preliminary objection that the complaint has been filed under section 12 of old Consumer Protection Act. The Opposite Party has admitted that deceased Vipin Kumar was insured under the subject Individual Personal Accident policy with the Opposite Party but alleged that the complaint is frivolous and liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Party contended that the deceased was himself negligent and died in alleged accident. It is further contended that Complainant had not submitted entire requisite documents despite reminders; hence, due to delay on the part of the Complainant in submitting the mandatory documents to Opposite Party, the claim was closed. The Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party filed affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Anand, Asstt. Manager of Opposite Party wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
7. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant’s son namely Vipin Kumar (now deceased) duly insured with the Opposite Party under the subject Individual Personal Accident policy and the Complainant was the nominee under the policy. Since the insured died in an accident, the Complainant being nominee visited Opposite Party and was asked for final report of FIR/ untrace report/status report to get the insurance claim. The allegation of the Complainant is that he had submitted all the requisite documents but the Opposite Party has not paid the insurance claim. On the other hand, the contention of the Opposite Party company is that the claim was closed due to non-submission of mandatory documents.
8. The perusal of pleadings shows that the Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainant’s son Vipin Kumar was insured under subject Individual Personal Accident policy with Opposite Party Company. The Opposite Party has also not disputed that the Complainant was the nominee under the said policy. The only contention of Opposite Party is that the requisite documents namely Status report with respect to the FIR concerning the death of the Complainant’s son and final report were mandatory for the claim and despite reminders, those were not submitted.
9. On perusal of material on record, we find that the Complainant has filed the copy of Status report submitted by the concerned I.O. confirming that final report of Inquest proceedings had been prepared and submitted. The said status report confirms the accidental death of the Complainant‘s son and also confirms that no foul play was suspected.
10. The main contention of the Opposite Party is that the insurance claim under the subject policy was not paid due to non-submission of requisite documents, status report of Inquest proceedings in particular. Since, the said document is available on record and Opposite Party has not paid the said claim till date which shows the deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Party.
11. In view of above discussion, we hold the Opposite Party guilty of deficiency in services towards the Complainant by not paying the valid claim of the Complainant, causing mental agony and torture to the Complainant.
12. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the Opposite Party i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay to the Complainant the Insurance claim amount under the subject policy with interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till its recovery.
13. Order announced on 02.02.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President