State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Divisional Manager, Lic Of India, ... vs Mr. Babul Sarkar & Others on 31 July, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/274/2011 (Arisen out of judgement dt. 6.4.11 in Case No. CF 19/2010 of DCDRF, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench at Alipurduar) DATE OF FILING : 14.06.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 31.07.2012 APPELLANTS 1. The Divisional Manager L.I.C. of India Santipura, P.O. Jalpaiguri Dist. Jalpaiguri. 2. The Branch Manager L.I.C. of India LIC Building, New Town, Alipurduar Dist. Jalpaiguri. RESPONDENT 1. Mr. Babul Sarkar Proprietor of Sarkar Medical Maya Talpuri Road Alipurduar Dist. Jalpaiguri. PROFORMA RESPONDENTS 2. The Manager Central Bank of India Alipurduar Branch P.O. & P.S. Alipurduar. 3. Ms. Rani Saha Mahakaldham, Samuktala Road (Near Bus Terminus) Alipurduar Dist. Jalpaiguri. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. D.BHATTACHARYA MEMBER : MR. J.BAG FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Ms. S.Roy Chowdhury, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. G.Gupta Roy, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. J.BAG, LD.
MEMBER The present Appeal is directed against the judgement dt. 6.4.11 in Case No. CF/19/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri, in the matter of Babul Sarkar (Complainant) Vs. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India and others (Ops).
The facts of the Complaint, in brief, are as follows :
The Complainants father, Subal Sarkar, deceased father of the complainant, had obtained three Life Insurance Policies worth Rs. 5,00,000/- during his lifetime from OP Nos. 1 & 2 through OP No. 4. OP No. 1 issued a policy bearing number 453542993 on 23.3.05, assured sum Rs.
2,00,000/- with half-yearly premium of Rs. 6677.00 only and date of maturity fixed on 28.3.2025. The second policy numbered 454190656 was issued on 28.12.05, assured sum Rs. 1,00,000/- with monthly premium of Rs. 750/- for 15 years and the third policy was numbered 455041105 dt. 28.6.2007, assured sum Rs. 2,00,000/-. The policy holder, particularly after obtaining the third policy in June, 2007, found it very difficult to pay the premium amounts. He took Rs. 6,00,000/-
as loan from Central Bank of India against security of (1) F.D. of Rs. 1,50,000/-, (2) personal homestead land and (3) the above-noted three LIC policies, which, though lapsed for failure on the part of the policy holder to pay the premium regularly, were subsequently revived with the approval of the Insurance Company. During his lifetime the deceased policy holder changed nomination to the effect that his wife, Smt. Mina Sarkar, as nominee, was replaced by his son Shri Bablu Sarkar, the present complainant with the knowledge of the Ops.
It was after revival of the policies that the deceased policy holder paid premiums regularly. All the policies stood assigned to the Central Bank of India, which the OP Nos. 1 & 2 approved. The policy holder died on 13.7.09. The information of death of his father was furnished by the complainant to Central Bank of India and the LIC of India supplied Claim Form through CBI on 28.8.09. The complainant submitted the Claim Form with necessary papers on 26.10.2010.
After receiving the Claim Form the Ops allegedly sat over the same and delayed in settlement of the claims on several pleas as alleged. Being aggrieved by the motive and non-action of the Insurance Company in not releasing the Insurance Policy benefits to the complainant over a period of about 9 months he submitted his complaint to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalpaiguri, Circuit Bench at Alipurduar and prayed for relief and compensation as stated in the complaint petition.
In their submissions before the Ld. District Forum below the Ops stated (1) that the complainant is not a Consumer within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, (2) that the deceased had submitted such information about his actual date of birth, as was not correct, and (3) that the deceased died of such disease as was existing for a long period prior to his death. It was also held by the Ops that the nomination of the deceased policy holder in favour of his son, Sri Babul Sarkar, the complainant herein, was not valid as the policies in question were all assigned to the Bank from where the deceased, Subal Sarkar, took loan of Rs. 6,00,000/-.
Ld. District Forum in its judgement mentioned the ruling CPR 2003 (1) NC 38 to 40 wherein it was decided that When more than two years had elapsed between date of issue of policy and death of insured, policy could not be called in question by insurer on ground that statement made in proposal form was inaccurate or false unless insurer showed that such information was on a material matter and it was fraudulently made by policy holder. The Forum was more inclined to be guided by Section 45 of the Insurance Act, which, inter alia, says that policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years. Ld. District Forum also did not accept the submission of Ops about the cause of death of the policy holder by observing that the Ops failed to adduce any relevant papers in support of their plea. They are not satisfied with the reasons submitted by the Ops in repudiation of the claim submitted by the complainant. Accordingly, they have allowed the complaint on contest and directed the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to pay to the Complainant Rs. 5,00,000/-, the total sum assured of three policies with 9% interest from the date of claim, i.e. 26.10.09, till realization along with another sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant within 45 days from the date of the order, i.d. a penal interest @ 9% p.a. would be levied upon the unpaid amount till realization.
The Appellants in their Appeal filed before this Commission have strongly argued that the Respondent is not a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and since the three LIC policies were assigned in favour of Central Bank of India, Alipurduar Branch, the insurer as per Section 38(5) of the Insurance Act, 1938 shall recognize the transferee or the assignee as the only person entitled to benefit under the policy. The Respondent not being the beneficiary under the said three policies has no cause of action to file any complaint against the Appellants. It has also been mentioned that as per Section 39 (4), a transfer or assignment or a policy made in accordance with Section 38 shall automatically cancel a nomination. This point appears to be very vital in disposing of the present Appeal. It is pertinent to note in this case that the deceased policy holder assigned the policies in favour of Central Bank of India, Alipurduar Branch and as per Section 39 of the Insurance Act, the nomination, which the deceased policy holder made in favour of his son, Sri Babul Sarkar, ceased to exist. It is quite prudent to hold that the present complainant cannot be treated as a Consumer and his case cannot be taken up for adjudication by any Consumer Forum strictly in terms of the said provision of the Insurance Act. On this very ground the Appeal stands and the order of the Ld. Forum below deserves to be set aside without going for consideration into other issues, i.e. the disputed date of birth of the deceased policy holder or material suppression regarding the actual cause of death of the deceased policy holder.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed on contest but without any order as to costs.
The impugned judgement stands set aside.
MEMBER MEMBER