Haryana

Sonipat

32/2014

1. SMT. MURTI DEVI W/O BALBIR SINGH,2. BALBIR SINGH S/O MARU RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER L.I.C. OF INDIA ,2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER L.I.C. OF INDIA,3. THE ZONAL MANAGE - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SHARMA

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.32 of 2014

                                Instituted on:27.01.2014

                                Date of order:03.04.2015

 

1.Smt. Murti Devi wife of Balbir Singh

2.Balbir Singh son of Maru Ram, both r/o H.No.39B/13, Nandwani Nagar, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainants.

                           Versus

1.The Branch Manager LIC of India, Sector 15, Sonepat.

2.The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, DO Karnal.

3.The Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Jeevan Bharti Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

                                           ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Sharma Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. OP Wadhwa, Adv. for respondents.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

          D.V.RATHI……………………………………………………………MEMBER.

O R D E R

            The complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging themselves the parents of deceased Sant Lal, who has purchased life insurance policy from respondents vide policy no.171965706 on 28.10.1999 for Rs.5 lacs and unfortunately the said Sant Lal on 13.2.2000 met with an rail accident while boarding the train arrived at platform no.1 at Railway station, Sonepat.  Due to sudden jolt and jerk, the said Sant Lal fell down and underneath the train, resulting which he was crushed and expired.  The post mortem of the dead body of Sant Lal was conducted.  The police of GRP Sonepat lodged an inquest report no.6 dated 13.2.2000 regarding the said accident. The complainants have lodged a claim before the respondents for getting the claim amount, but of no use.  The complainant thereafter filed a complaint no.60 of 2003 and the same was decided by this Forum on 13.8.2012 and the complainants were directed to lodge the claim and to complete the formalities of the respondents.  The complainants submitted all the required documents and also completed all the required formalities, but of no use and the DO Rohtak sent a letter dated 7.3.2013 to the complainants whereby the claim was repudiated.  The complainant filed the representation before the respondent no.3, but till date the complainants have not availed any positive response from the side of the respondents and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that  the deceased LA Sant Lal has purchased policy no.171965706 on 28.10.1999 from the respondents for Rs.5 lacs.  The respondents have submitted that as per police report, the cause of death is due to suicide by train due to some mental stress.    The present complaint is time barred.  It is further submitted that as per the terms and conditions no.8 of the policy, suicide clause was operative for one year. The complainants are not entitled for any claim as the deceased LA Sant Lal had committed suicide within one year from the date of risk.   The claim of the complainant was rightly rejected by the respondents and the same was intimated to the complainants vide letter dated 7.3.2013. The complainants have not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of the ld. Counsel for both the parties we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that as per police report, the cause of death is due to suicide by train due to some mental stress. 

         To prove the fact that the deceased has not committed the suicide as alleged by the respondents, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C7, the copy of order dated 3.11.2004 passed by this Forum in complaint no.62 of 13.2.2003, in which, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to pay the claim amount to the tune of Rs.3 lacs.

         In the complaint no.62 of 2003, the same issue was involved, but it was decided in favour of the complainants.

         So, taking strength from the order dated 3.11.2004 passed by this Forum in complaint no.62 of 2003, we have come to the conclusion that the complainants are entitled to get the claim amount from the respondents in respect of policy no.171965706.

         Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for the interest and if so, as to from what date?

         Vide order dated 13.8.2012 passed by this Forum in complaint no.60 of 2003, the complainants were directed to lodge the claim, to complete the formalities and to submit all the required documents with the respondents. The complainants have completed the formalities on 04.10.2012 and from that date, it was for the respondents to decide the claim of the complainants within two months i.e. 4.10.2012 to 3.12.2012. But the respondents have failed to do so.  Thus, the complainants are entitled to get the claim amount from the respondents alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from 4.10.2012.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.5 Lacs to the complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum w.e.f. 04.10.2012 till realization. The present complaint, thus, stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  03.04.2015