DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,SAHIBGANJ JHARKHAND Complaint Case No. CC/16/35 ( Date of Filing : 28 Sep 2016 ) 1. KIRAN CHOUDHARY KIRAN CHOUDHARY W/O LATE.SUNIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY RESIDENT OF SOUTH COLONY QR.NO.150/A,POST AND DIST.SAHIBGANJ SAHIBGANJ JHARKHAND ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. BRANCH MANAGER LICI, BRANCH SAHIBGANJ & OTHERS BRANCH MANAGER LICI,BRANCH SAHIBGANJ SAHIBGANJ JHARKHAND 2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER LICI,BHAGALPUR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LICI,BHAGALPUR BHAGALPUR BIHAR 3. THE MANAGER CLAIM ,DIVISIONAL OFFICE,BHAGALPUR THE MANAGER CLAIM,DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BHAGALPUR BHAGALPUR BIHAR ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: JUDGES Rajnarayan Tiwari PRESIDENT Uttam kumar Sinha MEMBER Smt. Priti Kumari MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 17 Apr 2018 Final Order / Judgement District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Sahibganj Consumer Complaint Case No. ? 019/2016 Sahibganj, dated 17th April 2018 Kiran Chowdhary W/O Late Sunil Kumar Chowdhary, R/O South Colony Q.No. 150/A, Post and Dist Sahibganj Jharkhand ???????????????. Complainant Versus i.) The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sahibganj ii) The Divisional Manager LICI, Bhagalpur, Bihar iii) The Manager ( Claim ), Divisional Office LICI, Bhagalpur, Bihar ??????.. Opposite Parties Before :- President - Rajnarayan Tiwari Member - Uttam Kumar Sinha Member - Priti Kumari For the complainant :- Shri Janardan Prasad Sah, Advocate For the Opposite Parties :- Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocate J u d g m e n t 1.) The Complainant has filed this consumer complaint case against the aforementioned Opposite parties for payment of Rs, 2,50,000.00 ( Sum assured of Policy No. 526871893 ) along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum and also Rs. 30,000.00 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000.00 towards her litigation cost. 2.) The case of the complainant as seen from the averments of the complaint petition is that complainant?s husband Late Sunil Kumar Chowdhary was insured with the LICI for sum ? Assured of Rs, 2,50,000.00 wide policy No, 526871893 and he was paying Rs. 12010.00 as annual premium against his aforesaid policy but unfortunately he died on 20.10.2014 due to cardiac attack and the complainant being nominee of the said policy of her husband, approached the Opposite parties and requested for payment of her claim against the said policy but the Opposite parties were delaying in making payment of her claim and seeing abnormal delay in payment of her claim the complainant sent legal notice to the Opposite parties on 13.07.2016 through her advocate which was not answered by the Branch Manager and having no any other option and alternative the complainant filed this consumer complaint case. 3.) O.P. No. ? 1, 2 and 3 appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant by way of filing of their joint written statement in which they have contended that complaint petition is not maintainable in eye of law as well as facts of the case and complaint petition is bad for misjoinder and non- joinder of necessary party as the complainant has not made Life Insurance Corporation of India as a party, which is a statutory body established under LIC Act 1956, having right to sue and be sued in its name . The Opposite parties have further contended that payment of policy in question could not be done as the claim was early and leave taken by the Life Assured is for long period i.e. from 05.11.10 to 14.11.10, 25.05.11 to 16.06.11, 19.06.12 to 27.06.12, 24.05.14 to 30.06.14 and 25.09.14 to 19.10.14, prior to date of his death and as such following documents are necessary to consider the death claim of the policy of Life Assured namely Sunil Kumar Chowdhary for policy No. 526871893 a) Treatment paper for last three years prior to death i.e. March 2010 to March 2014 along with all prescription and test reports. b) Attested leave application for sick leave availed from 05.11.10 to 19.10.2014 and also fitness certificate by employer. c) To provide B.H.T. case history, discharge summary from Sekhar Hospital (P.) Ltd. Lucknow. d) To provide all prescriptions, test reports of deceased Life assured regarding treatment of diabetes, H.T.N. and CKD. Since beginning. The claim of the Opposite Parties is that non submitting of the aforesaid required documents by the claimant, the death claim could not be considered and the complainant petition of the complainant is premature and there is not any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and as such complaint petition of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost. 4.) In support of her claim, the complainant Kiran Chowdhary has examined altogether three witnesses in this case in which cw1 is Kiran Chowdhary herself whereas cw2 and cw3 are Krishna Kumar and Anand Mohan respectively who are also working in the railway department as a driver along with husband of the complainant. Besides, her oral evidence the complainant has also filed following documents in support of her claim and contentions:- i) Annexture 1- Photo copy of policy bond of policy No. 526871893 ii) Annexture 2 ? Death certificate Photo copy issued by Lucknow Municipal Corporation. iii) Annexture 3 ? Photo copy of application of the complainant submitted before Branch Manager LIC, Sahibganj iv) Annexture 4 ? Photo copy of claimant?s statement v) Annexture 5 ? Photo copy of Identity and Burial or cremation vi) Annexture 6 ? Photocopy of Medical attendant?s certificate vii) Annexture 7 ? Certificate of Hospital treatment (Photo copy) viii) Annexture 8 ? Copy of policy status view ix) Annexture 9 ? Photo copy of legal notice. 5.) The Opposite parties have not preferred to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their case and contentions. 6.) In the light of documents and evidence available on the record and also argument advanced by the parties, the points for consideration are :- i.) Whether the complainant is a consumer to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer Forum? ii.) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties? iii.) To what relief the complainant is entitled? 7.) All the aforementioned points are taken together for consideration. Complainant?s claim is that she is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, which is not disputed by the Opposite Parties. Complainant?s case is that husband of the complainant namely Late Sunil Kumar Chowdhary was a driver in Railway department and he was doing his duty properly and regularly. Two independent witness namely Krishna Kumar cw2 and Anand Mohan cw3 who have been examining by the complainant are also working in Railway as a driver and they both have fully supported complainant?s version and deposed that the complainant?s husband Late Sunil Kumar Chowdhary was also a driver in Railway department and before his death he was doing his duty regularly and properly and he was possessing good health. Both the independent witnesses have also testified to the effect that husband of the complainant, Late Sunil Kumar Chowdhary was not suffering from any disease during his life time. The Complainant Kiran Chowdhary and witness have also testified to the effect that complainant Kiran Chowdhary along with her husband had gone to Lucknow to see her daughter Manisha Chowdhary on 14.10.2014 and on 19.10.2014 all of a sudden her husband had fallen ill and he was admitted in Shekhar Hospital Lucknow, where he breathed his last on 20.10.2014 due to cardiac attack. There after the complainant approached the branch manager and submitted her application for payment of claim of the said policy along with all the relevant papers and documents and seeing abnormal delay in payment of claim of the policy, sent legal notice through her advocate and lastly having no any other alternative and option filed this consumer case. On the other hand the claim of Opposite parties LIC, is that on 20.08.15, 25.02.2016, 29.02.2016 and 02.10.2016 the Opposite parties sent several letters to the complainant and demanded papers regarding treatment for last three years prior to death of complainant?s husband, along with all prescriptions and test reports, attested leave application for sick leave availed from 05.11.10 to 19.10.2014 and also fitness certificate by employer, to provide BHT case history discharge summary from Sekhar Hospital P. Ltd., Lucknow and to provide all prescriptions test reports of deceased Life assured regarding treatment of diabetes, H.T.N and CKD since beginning but the claimant has failed to submit the said required papers and document for consideration of death claim and complainant preferred to file premature complaint petition without submitting the required papers and as such complaint petition is liable to be dismissed as there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties. We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the complainant and LICI, and have gone through the complaint petition and written statement of the Opposite Parties and also carefully screened the relevant papers filed by the complainant and evidence adduced by her. Section 2g of Consumer protection Act, 1986 define deficiency which runs as under:- ? Deficiency ?? means any fault imperfection short coming or inadequacy in quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contact or otherwise in relation to any service. No any enquiry or investigation has been done by the Opposite Parties LICI, during settlement of the death claim of the policy of the complainant?s husband. There is no any evidence on the record on the strength of which it can be ascertained that Opposite Parties have proceeded with any enquiry or investigation, but surprisingly for settlement of the death claim of the husband of the complainant the Opposite party have demanded several documents and papers regarding the treatment of the complainant?s husband Sunil Kumar Chowdhary, whereas case of the complainant is that complainant?s husband Late Sunil Kumar Chowdhary was not ailing from any disease and he was possessing good health before his death. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances and discussions we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service???. On the part of Opposite parties LICI, in settlement of the death claim of the complainant?s husband and considering the claim of the complainant as well as surrounding circumstances of the case we direct the Opposite Parties O.P. No. 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 250000/- Rupees two lacs and fifty thousand along with 07 percent interest per annum towards sum assured on the deceased Sunil Kumar Chowdhary bearing Policy No. 526871893 to the complainant ?Kiran Chowdhary??. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs. 10000/- Rs. Ten thousand as compensation towards mental torture and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2000/- Rs. Two thousand against her litigation cost. In the facts and circumstances of the case the said amount of sum assured, compensation and litigation cost is to be paid to the complainant by the Opposite parties within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. Let free copy be issued to the parties. Uttam Kumar Sinha Priti Kumari Raj Narayan Tiwari(17.04.2018) Member Member President [JUDGES Rajnarayan Tiwari] PRESIDENT [ Uttam kumar Sinha] MEMBER [ Smt. Priti Kumari] MEMBER