State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Smt. Harbans Kaur on 17 October, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 284 / 2006
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Branch - Koshi Road, Ramnagar
District Nainital through its Branch Manager
C/o Divisional Office, Haridwar Road
Nehru Nagar Colony, Dehradun
...Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Smt. Harbans Kaur W/o late Sh. Baljinder Singh
R/o Village Umedpur, P.O. Karanpur
Tehsil Ramnagar, District Nainital
Presently R/o Village Kharmasi
Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Ram Kishore Arya, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 17/10/2011
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is insurer's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 200 of 2004. By the order impugned, the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party - appellant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards accidental benefit along with incidental benefits and also to pay interest @6% p.a. on sum of Rs. 50,000/- from 04.12.2004, i.e., the date of filing of the consumer complaint and further to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/-.2
2. In brief the facts of the case, as stated in the consumer complaint, are that Sh. Baljinder Singh, the deceased husband of the complainant, had purchased life insurance policy for assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 15.05.2002. The insured, however, met with a road accident on 05.12.2002 and sustained injuries and the insured succumbed to the said injuries on 06.12.2002. The complainant was the nominee under the said policy. On claim being lodged with the insurance company, the insurance company sent a cheque for sum of Rs. 53,550/- to the complainant vide letter dated 27.02.2003. The said amount was received by the complainant under protest. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, in the event of death of the life assured in an accident, the nominee was to get sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with incidental benefits. The complainant requested the insurance company for payment of remaining sum of Rs. 50,000/-, but the insurance company did not pay the same. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.
3. The insurance company filed written statement and pleaded that the cheque for sum of Rs. 53,550/- which included assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 3,550/- towards bonus, was paid to the complainant. The complainant did not furnish the copy of the FIR, Final Report and Postmortem report. The complainant received the cheque of Rs. 53,550/- without any protest. It was also pleaded that after receipt of the said amount, the complainant never contacted the insurance company, nor made any request for payment of accident benefits. It was further pleaded that there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.
34. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 18.10.2006 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company submitted that the complainant had received the amount of Rs. 53,550/- in full and final settlement of her claim and she has received the said amount voluntarily without any protest and, as such, she is not entitled to any further amount and the consumer complaint was not maintainable and the District Forum has erred in allowing the same. Learned counsel also submitted that the complainant has not made any allegation regarding undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation in execution of receipt / discharge voucher.
7. In para 5 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated that she has received the cheque of Rs. 53,550/- under protest. The insurance company in para 23 of their written statement has specifically denied the said averment and has stated that the complainant has received the said amount without any protest. Copy of Form No. 3801 is on record (Paper No. 38). By this document, the complainant has received sum of Rs. 53,550/-, which include policy amount and bonus, towards final settlement of all her claims. This form has been signed by the complainant and she has not made any endorsement on this form regarding receipt of the said amount "under protest". It is important to mention here that the complainant has not levied any allegation in her consumer complaint with regard to undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation on the insurance company in 4 execution of this document. The amount was received by the complainant on 27.02.2003 and the consumer complaint was filed on 04.12.2004 and there is nothing on record to show that the complainant has made any immediate protest to the insurance company and made any further claim. Therefore, the averment of "under protest" made in the consumer complaint appears to be an afterthought with a view to claim further amount from the insurance company, to which the complainant was not legally entitled. The District Forum has not considered this important aspect of the case and has wrongly allowed the consumer complaint. Learned counsel for respondent - complainant has filed a copy of the decision dated 03.07.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge / FTC - II, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 08 of 2003; Smt. Harbans Kaur and others Vs. Sh. Ramesh Singh and others, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 1,92,000/- together with interest @6% p.a. in favour of the claimants, in order to show that the life assured met an accidental death. But the said decision does not help the cause of the complainant because from the material available on record, it is proved beyond any doubt that the complainant has voluntarily received the amount of Rs. 53,550/- towards full and final settlement of all her claims and without any protest.
8. Learned counsel for the insurance company referred to a decision of this Commission rendered in the case of M/s Atika Food Products Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited; 2007 UAD 602. In the said case, no allegation of undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation in execution of discharge voucher and payment of compensation was made in the consumer complaint. It was held that the District Forum rightly held that the complainant accepted such amount of compensation towards full and final settlement of its claim 5 without protest. The said decision applies with full force to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Learned counsel also cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Sidra Rama Thombare Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited; III (2009) CPJ 158 (NC). In the said case, discharge voucher in full and final settlement of the claim was executed by the insured voluntarily and no protest note was attached to it. No objections were raised protesting against settlement for a period of 10 long months. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. In the present case also, as stated above, the amount was received on 27.02.2003 and the consumer complaint was filed on 04.12.2004 and no protest was lodged by the complainant with the insurance company between the said period of over 1 year and 9 months.
9. Thus, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made against the appellant. The District Forum, without considering this fact, has erred in allowing the consumer complaint. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 18.10.2006 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 200 of 2004 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K