Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/49

Krishna Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Siddharth Sharma,Adv.

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

ORDER

          MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

          Smt. Krishna Kumari has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’ only) praying for issuance of the following directions to it:-

          i)       To release the amount due under the policy i.e.

                   Rs.3,15,000/- alongwith interest @12% P.A.,

 

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages on account of mental agony, physical harassment & monetary loss suffered by her due to deficiency in service & adoption of unfair trade practice by the O.P.,

 

iii)     To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs,

 

iv)     To grant any other relief which this Forum may deem fit, in the interest of justice.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that her son, namely, Sandeep Kumar, had obtained one insurance policy bearing No.162674788, commencing from 14.06.2004, for a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- from the O.P. which was to be matured on 14.06.2024. Said Sandeep Kumar had appointed his mother i.e. the complainant as his nominee in the said policy. Sandeep Kumar was working as Mechanical Fitter in Trident Group Abhishek Industries Ltd., Paper and Chemical Division Dhadla, District Barnala. While duty in the said factory, Sandeep Kumar met with an accident and succumbed to injuries on 18.07.2014. DDR to that effect was lodged at PS Tapa, District Barnala vide No. 23 dated 18.7.2014. She had approached the O.P. and fulfilled all the formalities for getting payment of the claim amount under the policy, but the O.P. put off the matter on one pretext or the other. She had come to know that some lady alleging herself to be wife of said Sandeep Kumar is trying to get the insurance amount from the O.P. Ultimately, she had also got issued a legal notice dated 17.11.2014, which was received by the O.P. In the said notice, she had requested the O.P. not to release the claim amount under the policy to any one except the complainant i.e. nominee under the said policy and had also requested to release the claim amount to her, but no reply was given by the O.P. even to the said notice. She had again approached the O.P. & requested for release of the claim amount, but it had flatly refused to release the same. The said act of the O.P. amounts to deficiency in rendering service & adoption of unfair trade practice due to which, she has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written version in the shape of affidavit of Smt. Hem Lata, Manager (Legal) resisting the complaint taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no cause of action & no locus standi to file the complaint against the O.P., which is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. On merits, it is admitted that the policy in question was issued in the name of Sandeep Kumar, who was son of the complainant and that the complainant was appointed as nominee in the said policy, but it is stated that the O.P. is not aware about the death of said Sandeep Kumar because the same was not communicated to it. The complainant was required to intimate about death of the life assured and to produce his original death certificate, policy bond & other claim forms in the office of the O.P., but no claim, under the said policy, has been preferred, so far. After receipt of the death claim intimation and full set of claim documents, the claim shall be duly considered, as per the terms & conditions of the policy, and if otherwise found admissible, it would be considered for making payment of the due amount to the nominee unless some injunction or court order is received to the contrary, before the claim is admitted. It is further stated that civil suit regarding the claim amount has been filed in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Nawanshahar titled as ‘Seema Rani Vs Krishna Devi and others’ and the same is pending, in which the O.P. and the complainant have been made the defendants and the O.P. has already filed its written statement in the said case. In view of pendency of the said claim case in the civil court, this Forum is not competent to entertain the instant complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs, it being without any merit.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. CW1/A, copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Smt. Hem Lata, Manager Legal, Ex.OP-1, and photocopies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that deceased son of the complainant, namely, Sandeep Kumar had obtained the insurance policy in question, under which she was appointed as a nominee by him. After death of said Sandeep Kumar due to an accident, she approached the O.P. for payment of the death claim under the said policy to her and completed all the formalities, but the claim amount has not been released to her inspite of her repeated visits and requests that she being nominee under the policy is entitled to receive payment of the claim amount under the said insurance policy. As such, the O.P. be directed to pay the sum insured of Rs.3,15,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. till realization alongwith litigation expenses.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the O.P. vehemently argued that the complainant was required to intimate about death of the life assured and to produce his original death certificate, policy bond & other claim forms in the office of the O.P., but no claim, under the policy in question, has been preferred, so far. The claim shall be duly considered, as per the terms & conditions of the policy, if death intimation alongwith full set of claim documents is received by the O.P., and if the same is found admissible, it would be considered for making payment of the due amount to the nominee unless some injunction or court order is received to the contrary, before admission of the said claim. He further submitted that the O.P. had received sommons issued by the court of Sh. Barjinder Pal Singh , Civil Judge (SD), SBS Nagar, on 17.09.2014 in the civil suit titled—‘Seema Rani Vs Krishna Devi and others’ which was filed by Smt. Seema Rani wife of deceased Sandeep Kumar, in which the complainant has also been arrayed as defendant No. 1, and the said suit is still pending. Therefore, the instant complaint filed by the complainant, being not maintainable,is liable to be dismissed with costs. The learned counsel for the O.P. has also drawn our attention to a case—‘Dr. Dinesh vs. Swastik Builders and others’ 2002(1) CLT 96 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, wherein it has been held that when a civil suit is pending on the same subject matter, it is not for the Commission to entertain any complaint. The learned counsel has also referred to the case –‘Daljit Kaur vs. Hari Singh & Ors.’ 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 660 decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Court wherein it has been held that nomination only authorizes the nominee to receive the payment, however, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to the same in accordance with law of succession. The succession may be testamentary or intestate. The amount does not belong to the nominee and it remains the property of the legal heirs. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Smt. Sarbati Devi and another vs. Smt. Usha Devi’ AIR 1984 Supreme Court 346 has held that nominee of the life insurance policy does not get absolute right to the amount due.

 

8.                Admittedly, the insurance policy in question was issued by the O.P. in the name of Sandeep Kumar, under which the complainant was appointed as nominee. As per stand of the O.P., the complainant was required to intimate about death of the life assured and to produce his original death certificate, policy bond & other claim forms in the office of the O.P., but no claim, under the said policy, has been preferred, so far. The complainant has not produced on record any document from which it can be inferred that the claim alongwith the requisite documents was lodged with the O.P. If no claim has been lodged by the complainant with the O.P., the instant complaint filed by her is premature and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.  Moreover, as is evident from the copy of plaint (Ex. C5/Ex.OP-2), copy of sommons (Ex.OP-3) issued on 17.09.2014 by the court of Sh. Barjinder Pal Singh , Civil Judge (SD), SBS Nagar, a civil suit titled—‘Seema Rani Vs Krishna Devi and others’ which was filed by Smt. Seema Rani wife of deceased Sandeep Kumar, before filing of the instant complaint, is already pending, in which the complainant has also been arrayed as defendant No. 1, and the said suit very much pertains to the insurance policy regarding which the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant. Since, firstly, the complainant has not yet lodged any claim with the O.P., secondly, the civil suit filed by the wife of the deceased, regarding this very policy, is already sub judice, the instant complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the same, with no order as to costs.

 

9.                The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 06.11.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.