Forum : Bishenpur

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE No.1 of 2016

Smt .Mutum Memthoi Leima aged about 41 years

w/o late Mutum Ibohal Meitei of Gelmol Leikai,

Trongloabi P.O. & P.S Moirang, represented by

Her Attorney namely Soibam Biswajit Singh aged

about 42 years s/o late S. Brajadhon Singh of

Tronglaobi Awang Likai.

..................Complainant

Vs

1 . Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Limited,

Registered and head office at GE Plaza, Airport

Yerawada ,Pune , Maharastra ? 41106 and

2 . The Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance Life ,

Company Limited, Imphal Branch , M.G.Avenue,

Imphal.

............Opposite Parties

P R E S E N T

Shri Y.Biramani Singh,

President,

District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,Bishnupur.

S.Sadhana Devi,

Member,

District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,Bishnupur.

L.Rameshore Singh,

Member,

District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,Bishnupur.

For the complainant : Th.Sudhir Meitei ,Advocate

For the Opposite parties : Sanjoy Yambem , Advocate

Date of Hearing : 26/02/2018

Date of Ordrer : 06/04/2018

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER

06/04/2018

This is to dispose of the consumer complaint case no. 1 of 2016 filed by the complainant u/s of the consumer protection Act,1986 against the opposite parties for deficiency of services on the part of the opposite parties.

The case of the complaint in brief is that the present complaint petition is being filed by the complainant through her Attorney namely Soibam Biswajit Singh under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 for passing appropriate orders against the opposite parties for causing negligence and deficiency in service.

The present complainant is the lawfully married wife of Mutum Ibohal Meitei who died on 02/08/2015.During the life time of Mutum Ibohal Meitei,he purchase a life insurance policy from the opposite party No.1 on payment of annual premium of RS. 47,738.91(forty seven thousand seven hundred thirty eight and ninety one paise) having a sum assured amounting to Rs.12,00,000 /-(Rupees twelve lacs)and the opposite party No.1 also issued policy documents being policy No. 0322769534 therby entering the name of the complainant as Nominee of Mutum Ibohal Meetei in the relevant records of the said life insurance poicy.But the said policy holder Shri Mutum Ibohal Meitei untimely died on 02/08/2015 due to heart problem.

On the death of policy holder Shri Mutum Ibohal Meetei the present complainant being a nominee applied for death claim before the opposite party No.1 through the opposite party No.2 thereby submitting all the necessary and relevant documents. But the opposite parties denied the claim of the complainant and rejected the claim petition on the ground of pre proposed death.

It is also stated that the complainant filed another petition before the claims review committee of the opposite party No.1 for reconsideration/review of the complainant?s claim but the Claims Review committee also confirmed the earlier decision of the company.Hence, the present consumer complaint case.

In support of her case the complainant have filed the following documents :-

Original copy of the letter date 32/12/2015 addressed to the complainant by the O.P.No.1.

Copy of the letter from the O.P.No.1 dated 22/02/2016 addressed to the complainant.

Certified copy of the Death Certificate of late Mutum Ibohal Meitei dated 28/06/2016 issued by the Registrar Birth & Death ,

Moirang C.D.Block.

(iv) Original copy of Death Certificate of M.Ibohal Meetei issued by

M.Birachandra Singh,Member,7-Ngangkhalawai,Zilla Parishad.

(v) Copy of Death Certicate of M.Ibohal Meetei issued by L.Tombi

Devi,Pradhan Trongloabi-Terakhonshangbi Gram Panchayat.

(vi) Copy of Death Certificate of M.Ibohal Meitei issued by the

Y.Ibomcha Singh Ward Member ,Ward No.7/Tronglaobi- Tera

Khonshangbi Gram Panchayat.

(vii) Copy of Affidavit sworn by the complainant before the oath

Commissioner ,Bishnupur in respect of death of M.Ibohal Meitei.

(viii) Original copy of Special power of Attorny executed by the

Complainant dated 01/07/2016.

(ix) Copy of policy document bearing Policy No.0322769534 issued

By Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Ltd.

(x) Copy of proposal Form for Life Insurance policy of the deceased

Mutum Ibohal Meitei.

(xi) Attested photo copy of death certificate maintained by the

Registrar Births & Death,Moirang C.D.Block.

(xii) Copy of death claim application dated 21/08/2015 addressed

To the Manager , Manipur Rural Bank,Moirang branch.

(xiii) Copy of death claim form submitted to the LIC through the

Manager Manipur Rural Bank,Moirang branch.

(xiv) Copy of the intimation letter of death claim addressed to the

Complainant dated 05/01/2016.

(xv) Copy of the colour photograph of deceased M.Ibohal Meitei

Showing the date of death on 02/08/2015.

(xvi) Copy of policy document in respect of policy No. 0322769534.

On being summoned the opposite parties also present before the court by filling Vakalatnama and filed their joint written statement that the present complaint case is not maintainable as the complaint case cannot be file by a power of attorney holder and denied all the statements made in the complaint petition.

According to the opposite parties the policy holder Shri Mutum Ibohal Meitei expired on 02/04/2015 not on 02/08/2015 and the policy in question was purchased by the complainant (wife of the deceased person) in the name of her husband Mutum Ibohal Meitei after his death in the collusion with some unscrupulous persons for their personal gain.As given in the joint written statement of the opposite parties the complainant fraudulently submitted proposal dated 25/04/2015 whereby heavy risk cover to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- was proposed on the life of Mutum Ibohal Meitei without disclosing the facts that the said mutum Ibohal Meitei had already expired on 02/04/2015. The opposite parties accepted the proposal in the normal course of insurance business on the basis of the documents submitted by the complainant and a policy bearing No. 0322769534 was issued with date of commencement as 18/05/2015 for sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.

According to the opposite Parties the life assured shri Mutum Ibohal Meitei expired on 02/04/2015 not on 02/08/2015.It is also submitted that the present complainant is not a consumer so the complainant is not entitiled to any reliefs/compensation claimed.

On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed:

I S S U E S

Whether the present complaint case can be filed by a power of Attorny holder or not ?

Whether the deceased Mutum Ibohal Meitei purchased a life insurance policy bering Policy No.0322769534 during his life time or not ?

Whether the policy holder deceased Mutum Ibohal Meitei expired on 02/08/2015 or 02/04/2015 due to cancer or not ?

Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?

Whether the present case is maintainable or not ?

Whether the complainant is entitiled to the reliefs claimed ?

It may be mentioned here that the complainant have produced 3(three) witness and 15(fifteen) documents in support of her claim and whereas the opposite parties have produced only witness and 6(six) documents in support of their claim.

DISCUSSIONS , REASONS AND DECISIONS

Issue No.1 Whether the present complaint case can be filed by a power

of attorney holder or not ?

As per Order III Rule 2(a) of the civil procedure code ? persons holding on behalf of such party either general power of attorney or requisite special power of attorney from the party authorising him to make and do such appearance,applications and acts on behalf of such party.

On 01/07/2016 the present complainant executed a special power of attorney constituting Shri Soibam Biswajit singh as a lawful attorney.

Exhibit A/9 is the original copy of the Special Power of attorney.Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2. Whether the deceased Mutum Ibohal Meitei purchased a life insurance policy bearing policy No.0322769534 during his life time or not ?

It is the plea of the complainant that the husband of the complainant namely Mutum Ibohal Meitei during his life time purchased a life insurance policy from the opposite party No. 1 on payment of annual premium Rs.47,738,91/- having a sum assured amounting to Rs.12,000,00/- only and opposite party No.1 also allowed and issued policy documents being policy No.0322769534 thereby recording the name of the complainant as Nominee of Mutum.Ibohal Meitei.

This fact is denied by the opposite parties .However,it is clearly mentioned in the written statement of theopposite partie in par No.5 ?That the answering opposite parties accepted the proposal in the normal course of insurance business on the basis of the documents fraudulently submitted by the complainant and a policy bearing No.0322769534 was issued with date of commencement as 18/05/2015.Exhibit A/10, A/11 and A/17 are the policy documents issued by the opposite No.1.

Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.3.Whether the policy holder deceased Mutum ibohal Meitei expired on 02/08/2015 or 02/04/2015 due to cancer or not ?

The complainant pleaded that unluckily the policy older namely Ibohal Meitei expired on 02/08/2015 due to heart attack. Exhibit A/4 is the death certificate issued by the Registrar,Birth and death,moirang C.D.Block dated 24/08/2015.Exhibit A/12 is the extrct copy of registrar of deaths containg date of death of Mutum Ibohal Meitei maintained by the registrar,Birthand Death ,Moirang C.D.Block,containing cause of death written as CARDIO RESPIRATORY FAILURE,dated 14/07/2016.Exhibit A/5 is the original death certificate issued by the M.Birachandra Singh,Member,7-Ngangkhalawai Z.P.,Bishnupur Districtin respect of the death of Mutum Ibohal Meitei issued by L.Tombi Devi,Pradhan,Tronglaobi-Terakhongsangbi G.P dated 20/01/2016 respectively.And Exhibit A/16 is the Photograph of Late Mutum Ibohal Meitei writtenas expired on 02/08/2015 Sunday.On the other hand,the opposite parties denied the facts.It is the plea of the opposite parties that the husband of the complainant,late Mutum Ibohal Meitei expired on 02/04/2015 due to cancer not on 02/08/2015 due to heart attack.To provethe claim of the opposite parties produced the following documents :-

(i)Copy of Death certificate issued by the Member,Tronglaobi Gram Panchayat,G.P.Exhibit D/3.

(ii)Copy of Death certificate issued byL.Tombi Devi, Pradhan,Tronglaobi Gram Panchayat Exhibit D/4 and Exhibit D/5 is the copy of cancelled death certificate.Exhibit D/6 is also the photocopy of Mutum Ibohal Meitei containing date of death as 02/04/2015.

To Prove the genuinenss of the Deat Certificate issued by the Registrar Births and Deaths,Moirang, this forum summon one Ayekpam Kumar Singh Sub-Registrar,Moirang C.D.Block as court witness.According to his statement the death certificate issued on 24/08/2015 by the Registering Authority ,Births and Deaths,Moirang C.D.Block showing the date of death as 02/08/2015 in respect of Mutum Ibohal Meitei is true and correct as per records maintained by this Office and ther is no such cancellation of certificate of the death of Mutum Ibohal Meitei.

Further, the document Exhibit D/7 produced by the opposite parties which is a dri ving licence of the deceased, MutumIbohal Meitei issued by the District Transport Officer,Bishnupur is valid from 20/04/2015 to 19/04/2020.From the said document ,it is confirmed that the deceased Mutum Ibohal Meitei was alive till 20/04/2015.He never died on 02/04/2015.

From the above discussion,it is clear that Mutum Ibohal Meitei died on 02/08/2015 due to heart attack.This issue is decided in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.4.Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?

As per the plea of the complainant ,it is clear that late Mutum Ibohal Meitei purchased a lif insurance policy from the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No. 1 also issued policy document bearing No.0322769534.This fact is not disputed by the opposite parties.

According to the Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 defines consumer.This definition contains two parts.The first deals with goods and the other with services.Both parts declare the meaning of goods and services by use of wide expression.Their ambit is further enlarge by use of exclusive clause.For instance it is not only purchased the goods or who hired services are included in it.

The present complainant is the wife of the deceased policy holder.She is the beneficiary of the policy holder.So, she is a consumer.This issue is also decided in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.5. Whether the present case is maitanable or not?

Since the issue No.1,2,3, and 4 have been decided accordingly ,so the present case is also maintainable.Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the complainant.

O R D E R

In the result ,we hold that the present opposite parties No.1 and 2 are liable for the act of deficiency of service and the complainant is entitiled to get a sum of Rs.12,000,00/-(Twelve Lacs)being the sum assured amount on death in respect of the life insurance policy bearing No.0322769534 on the life of Mutum Ibohal Meitei plus a compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of services, plus a sum of Rs.10,000/- as the cost of litigation.Altogether the total amount of Rs.12,60,000/-(Twelve lacs sixty-thousand) is to be paid by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of judgement and order.

Announced.