State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Samuel Masih vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India ... on 19 May, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.304 of 2016
Date of Institution: 27.09.2016.
Date of Decision : 19.05.2017.
Samuel Masih S/o Sh. Jamal Masih Village Dial Bhatt, Post Office Gag
goes Mahan, Testily Anal District Amritsar.
......Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office-4-5 District
Shopping Complex Ramjet Avenue Amritsar through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeewan Udyog Building Near
Bus Stand, City Centre Scheme Amritsar through its Zonal Officer.
......Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate For opposite parties : Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant complaint has been filed for claiming the amount from the Insurance Company on account of death of Mrs. Khathreen, who purchased insurance policies i.e., Amulya Jeewan-2 Policy No.473921231, New Jeewan Anand policy No.473921232 for insurance cover of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lakh) & Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakh) respectively. Unfortunately, Mrs. Khathreen, DLA, has expired for some C.C. No. 304 of 2016 2 reasons. The legal heirs of the deceased are already litigating before the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. CS/409/2016 titled as Baldina Vs. LIC of India between the complainant and other legal heirs pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala. The complainant has not stated about this in his complaint nor has impleaded all the legal heirs of Mrs. Khathreen, DLA. In view of the dispute between the legal heirs and Life Insurance Company is not in a position to disburse the amount in question to the complainant alone. Counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, has pointed out that they have received a legal notice from one of the legal heirs requesting them not to release the amount to the complainant, since there are allegations that Mrs. Khathreen was allegedly murdered by the complainant.
Keeping in view the complexity of facts and the fact that the parties are already litigating before the Civil Court on the issue with regard to the claim of the policies, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in CITI Communications vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.III (2014) CPJ 109, relevant paras of which are reproduced as under:
11. "Hence, it is apparent from the record, that the petitioners had suppressed the material facts from the District Forum since they did not mention in their complaint that Respondent-Bank had filed a recovery suit against them in the Civil Court. Further, Petitioners had also not mentioned this fact that they had entered into a compromise in writing with the respondents and respondents had withdrawn the recovery suit.
12. It is well settled, that any litigant while approaching any Judicial Fora has to mention the true and correct facts. C.C. No. 304 of 2016 3
Suppression of the material facts will lead to the dismissal of the petition at the threshold itself. Both the Fora below have given a finding of fact that petitioners had suppressed the material facts about the earlier litigations pending between the parties. Moreover, as per the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners do not fall within the meaning of 'Consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'Act')".
the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to avail the remedy before appropriate Fora.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER May 19, 2017 SK/-