District Consumer Forum, Bokaro
Consumer Case No.-64 /2009
Chhabintah Singh
R/o Gujrat Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Chas Dist.- Bokaro.
(Jharkhand)
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
L.I.C. of India, Branch-II, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro
Present-
S.M. Alam, President
Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment-18/12/2009
Date of Case filing-17/08/2009
-: Judgment:-
The complainant has filed the present case against the
opposite party to pay accidental double benefit worth Rs. 584000/- till payment, Rs. 50000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony, and Rs. 10000/- as cost of proceeding.
2 Brief fact of the case is that Son of the complainant late Sudhir Kumar Singh had taken a Jeevan Rekha Life Insurance Policy vide policy no. 540143745 during his life time. The policy was issued on 21.06.2003 on the basis of half yearly premium from the opposite party and its maturity was on 06/2081 and last due payment was on 12/2022 and the complainant is the nominee in the said policy. Late Sudhir Kumar Singh had deposited first premium of Rs. 10297/- and the policy commencement date of 21.06.2003 and thereafter, he regularly deposited the premium and last premium was deposited on 02.01.2007. But on 16.02.2007 late Sudhir Kumar Singh was kidnapped by unknown person while he was going SAIL Office from his home on Motorcycle at about 11:30 A.M. The complaint was lodged by the complainant on 17.02.2007 at Chas Police Station where a case was registered vide No. 23/2007 under section 364 (A) IPC. During investigation Police recovered dead body of Sudhir Kumar Singh on 28.02.2007 from Cooling Pound, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, thereafter, section 302, 201 and 120(B) IPC were added after recovery of the dead body. On 28.02.2007 Postmortem of dead body was conducted at Sadar Hospital, Chas. The conducting doctor has given opinion in the Postmortem Report that deceased died 10-15 days before the date of Postmortem and the cause of death is severe head injury. Thus it is clearly appears that accidental death of Sudhir Kumar Singh was taken placed between 16.02.2007 to 18.02.2007. The aforesaid policy was valid during the period of accident and thereafter the complainant submitted death claim form to the opposite party along with relevant documents. The opposite party paid the claim of Rs. 500000/- basic amount + Rs. 64500/- Vested bonus + Rs. 19500/- interim bonus which comes to total Rs. 584000/-. The opposite party failed to pay the accidental double benefit claim on the ground that death of the deceased was not accidental. The complainant had requested several times to the opposite party for paying the double accidental benefit as the death of his son was accidental but the opposite party told the matter will be considered by the higher authority but before filling of this case he did not paid the same, which compelled the complainant to file the present Consumer Case for redressal of his grievances. Thus from the above fact it is clear that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party, hence the complainant is entitled t get relief sought against him.
3 After issuance of notice the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement stating therein that the complaint is not maintainable in its present Form. There is no cause of action for the present complaint and at the same time, the complainant is hopelessly barred by the principle of estoppels, waiver and law of limitation, hence the present Consumer Case is fit to be dismissed. However the opposite party admits that deceased Sudhir Kumar Singh was kidnapped for which a case under section 364 (a) IPC was lodged by the father and subsequently after recovery of dead body of deceased Sudhir Kumar Singh on 28.02.2007 section 302, 201 and 120(B) IPC having added. But according to the opposite party kidnapping and murder of the deceased Sudhir Kumar Singh was not a accident, rather it was due to previous family enmity. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get accidental double benefit.
4 In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and as such, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief against the opposite party and the present Consumer Complaint is fit to be dismissed.
5 Heard both the parties and perused the entire case records and documents filed by them. The Insurance coverage of the life of the deceased under the LIC Policy in question No. 540143745 for Rs. 500000/- is an admitted fact. During this period of life insurance coverage the death of the deceased occurred. The nominee in the said LIC Policy was paid Rs. 500000/- besides Rs. 84000/- as bonus. On scrutiny of the documents available in the case records, it is observed that the deceased insured was covered under Jeevan Rekha Life Insurance Policy in question on 21.06.2003. It is found that the policy was for double accident benefit payment. But the LIC, opposite party in this case has not paid the double accident benefit to the claimant. It has not been established that the deceased insured was having any criminal records and his death had occurred on account of any gangwar/enmity.
6 In view of the above, we conclude that the death of the deceased insured was an accidental one. We, therefore, hold the opposite party negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant by not paying the double accidental benefit to the claimant under the LIC Policy in question. The opposite party is held liable to pay relief of the complainant.
7 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party is directed to further pay the double accident benefit amount of Rs. 500000/- (Rs. Five lacs) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The above opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) only as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Member (lady) Member President