State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Bhim Sen. vs Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 16 April, 2020
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 162/2019
Date of Presentation: 25.04.2019
Order Reserved on : 16.09.2019
Date of Order : 16.04.2020
......
Sh.Bhim Sen son of Sh. Kamlesh Chand resident of Village
Sidhwan Post Office and Tehsil Banjar District Kullu H.P.
Through his natural guardian father Sh.Kamlesh Chand S/o Sh.
Surat Ram R/o Village Sidhwan Post Office and Tehsil Banjar
District Kullu H.P.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Branch
Manager Branch Office Kullu District Kullu H.P.
......Respondent/Opposite party
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Hon'ble Mr.R.K.Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Sh.Susheel K. Parihar Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr..Dhiraj Kanwar Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 29.03.2019 passed by Learned DCF/DCC in consumer complaint No.26/2017 titled Bhim Sen through his Natural Guardian Versus Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Bhim Sen Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A. No.162/2019 Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Bhim Sen minor complainant through his natural guardian namely Sh.Kamlesh Chand filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that deceased Devi Chand purchased Life Insurance Policy from opposite party on 22.09.2014 for sum of Rs.77650/-
(Seventy seven thousand six hundred fifty). It is pleaded that minor namely Bhim Sen was mentioned as nominee in Life Insurance Policy in question. It is further pleaded that insured Devi Chand died on 25.04.2016. It is pleaded that Insurance claim was submitted before opposite party but opposite party did not settle claim and committed deficiency in service. Relief sought to the effect that opposite party be directed to pay sum of Rs.77650/- (Seventy seven thousand six hundred fifty) to minor complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum alongwith special damage and costs also sought. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that premium for policy in question was paid for two years. It is further pleaded that Life Insurance Company received sum of Rs.19900/- (Nineteen thousand nine hundred) for policy No.51829378. It is further pleaded that policy in question was foreclosed on 22.09.2017. It is further pleaded that complainant did not supply any documents. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not 2 Bhim Sen Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A. No.162/2019 commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Minor complainant through his natural guardian filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations as mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned DCF/DCC dismissed consumer complaint and held that at the time of institution of consumer complaint complainant nominee Bhim Sen was major as per proposal form and consumer complaint filed by major through natural guardian was not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned DCF/DCC complainant Sh.Bhim Sen filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Sh.Kamlesh Chand natural guardian of complainant Bhim Sen filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that Bhim Sen is son of deponent who is 3 Bhim Sen Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A. No.162/2019
minor. There is further recital in affidavit that deceased insured was real uncle of minor complainant Bhim Sen. There is further recital in affidavit that premium was paid to Insurance company. There is further recital in affidavit that deceased insured namely Devi Chand died on 25.04.2016. There is further recital in affidavit that Bhim Sen complainant has been mentioned as nominee in Life Insurance Policy in question. There is further recital in affidavit that legal notice was also issued to Reliance Life Insurance Company for payment of Insurance claim. There is further recital in affidavit that all documents were supplied to Insurance Company but Insurance company despite supplying all documents did not settle Insurance claim and committed deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant.
8. Reliance Life Insurance Company filed affidavit of Bhuvnesh Kumar Senior Manager Legal in evidence. There is further recital in affidavit that Life Insurance Company received premium to the tune of Rs.19900/- (Nineteen thousand nine hundred) for policy No.51829378 which was foreclosed on 22.09.2017. There is further recital in affidavit that documents were not furnished to Insurance company for process of Insurance claim. There is further recital in affidavit that Insurance policy in question stood lapsed. 4
Bhim Sen Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A. No.162/2019 There is further recital in affidavit that Insurance company did not commit any deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite party.
9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant Bhim Sen that complainant Bhim Sen is legally entitled to Insurance claim to the tune of Rs.77650/- (Seventy seven thousand six hundred fifty) alongwith interest being nominee in Insurance policy is decided accordingly. As per Life Insurance policy placed on record it is proved on record that opposite party issued Life Insurance Policy in favour of deceased insured Devi Chand for sum of Rs.77650/- (Seventy seven thousand six hundred fifty). It is also proved on record that Insurance company received premium from deceased insured Devi Chand. Commencement date of Insurance policy in question has been mentioned as 22.09.2014 and maturity date of Insurance policy has been mentioned as 22.09.2029. Complainant namely Bhim Sen has been mentioned as nominee in proposal form.
10. As per death certificate placed on record deceased insured Devi Chand died on 25.04.2016 and Life Insurance Policy in question was foreclosed on 22.09.2017. At the time of death of deceased insured Devi Chand Life Insurance Policy in question was under operation. Sh.Kamlesh Chand natural guardian of minor complainant Bhim Sen has specifically 5 Bhim Sen Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A. No.162/2019 mentioned in his affidavit that Bhim Sen was minor on dated 25.04.2016 when cause of action accrued to minor complainant Bhim Sen. Complainant has also filed Matriculation Examination Certificate issued by Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education before State Station. As per Matriculation Examination Certificate minor complainant Bhim Sen was born on 22.01.2000. State Commission is of the opinion that Matriculation Examination Certificate has been issued by Public Authority in discharge of public official duty and is relevant fact. In view of the fact that on dated 25.04.2016 Life Insurance Policy in question was under
operation State Commission is of the opinion that Insurance company is under legal obligation to pay Insurance claim to Bhim Sen nominee. It is well settled law that Insurance claim survives to legal heirs or nominee mentioned in Insurance policy at the time of death of insured. See. 2006 (2) CPC 667 Apex Court titled Mukesh Kumari (Minor & Dead) by LRs Versus M. Lal Oswal Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation & Another.
11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant Bhim Sen that complainant Bhim Sen is legally entitled for compensation is decided accordingly.
State Commission is of the opinion that minor complainant Bhim Sen is legally entitled for equitable compensation 6 Bhim Sen Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A. No.162/2019 because Insurance company did not pay Insurance claim to minor Bhim Sen within reasonable time.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant Bhim Sen that complainant Bhim Sen is legally entitled for litigation costs is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant Bhim Sen through natural guardian has engaged Advocate before learned DCF/DCC and has paid Advocate fee and incurred other expenses. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant Bhim Sen is legally entitled for equitable litigation costs.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. that in proposal form age of nominee namely Bhim Sen has been mentioned as 18.02.1995 and at the time of filing consumer complaint complainant Bhim Sen was major and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Name of agent in Insurance policy has been mentioned as Ms.Tanvi. Insurance company did not file personal affidavit of Ms.Tanvi Insurance agent that age of Bhim Sen in proposal form was disclosed to her as 18.02.1995. Hence adverse inference is drawn against Insurance company for non-filing personal affidavit of Ms.Tanvi Insurance agent who has procured proposal form. Plea of Insurance company that date of birth of Bhim Sen is 7 Bhim Sen Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A. No.162/2019 18.02.1995 is rebutted by way of affidavit filed by Kamlesh Chand father of Bhim Sen. Sh. Kamlesh Chand father of Bhim Sen has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that Bhim Sen is minor. Insurance company did not send any interrogatory to Kamlesh Chand. No reason assigned as to why Insurance company did not send any interrogatory to Kamlesh Chand relating to age of Bhim Sen. It is well settled law that adverse inference relating to entry in document could be drawn only when attention of person is drawn to previous admission.
14. In proposal form placed on record name of witness has been mentioned as Rakesh Kumar. Insurance company did not file personal affidavit of eye witness namely Rakesh Kumar in order to prove that deceased insured Devi Chand has disclosed age of nominee Bhim Sen as 18.02.1995. Hence adverse inference is drawn against Insurance company for non-filing of personal affidavit of eye witness namely Rakesh Kumar in whose presence proposal form was filled up by agent Ms.Tanvi.
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. that no documents were supplied by complainant and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. In present matter legal notice was issued to 8 Bhim Sen Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A. No.162/2019 Insurance company and even before learned DCF/DCC Insurance company did not pay Insurance claim to nominee namely Bhim Sen. Deficiency on the part of Insurance company is writ large in present. It is well settled law that Consumer Authorities are under legal obligation to protect interest of minor. It is well settled law that when two views are possible then view favourable to consumer should be adopted. See 2018(1) CLT 468 NC Union of India through GM Western Railway Versus Smt. Vinaya Vilas Sawant. See 2019(4) CPR 851 NC titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Dr. Abhijit Purshottam Pathak. State Commission is of the opinion that cause of action arisen to complainant after death of insured on 25.04.2016. It is proved on record that on 25.04.2016 Insurance policy in question was operative and it is proved on record as per Matriculation Examination Certificate placed on record that on 25.04.2016 Sh.Bhim Sen was minor.
16. Even in present matter Insurance company has been impleaded through Branch Manager. Insurance company did not file personal affidavit of Branch Manager. Hence adverse inference is drawn against Insurance company for non-filing of personal affidavit of Branch Manager. Insurance company has filed affidavit of Bhuvnesh Kumar who is Senior Manager Legal. In present matter Insurance 9 Bhim Sen Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A. No.162/2019 company has not been impleaded through Senior Manager Legal. See AIR 1999 Apex Court 1441 titled Vidyadhar Versus Mankik Rao & Anr. See AIR 1999 Apex Court 1341 titled Ishwar Bhai C. Patel Versus Harihar Bahera. In view of above stated facts and cause law cited supra point No.1 is decided in affirmative.
Point No.2: Final Order
17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by nominee complainant Bhim Sen is allowed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is set aside. It is ordered that Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay Insurance claim to nominee complainant Bhim Sen to the tune of Rs.77650/- (Seventy seven thousand six hundred fifty) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till actual payment
18. It is further ordered that in addition Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay compensation to complainant Bhim Sen nominee for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand). It is further ordered that in addition Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay litigation costs to complainant nominee Bhim Sen to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand). Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. shall comply order within one month after receipt of certified copy of order. 10
Bhim Sen Versus Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. F.A. No.162/2019
19. Life Insurance Policy issued by Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd., death certificate of deceased insured namely Devi Chand placed on record and Matriculation Examination Certificate relating to nominee complainant Bhim Sen wherein date of birth of Bhim Sen has been mentioned as 22.01.2000 shall form part and parcel of order.
20. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Certified copy of order be sent to learned DCF/DCC forthwith for information and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. F.A.No.162/2019 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member R.K.Verma Member 16.04.2020 Manoj 11