STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 06.06.2024 Reserved on : 30.01.2025 Date of Decision : 13.02.2025

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ombudsman Office of Insurance Ombudsman, SCO 101-103, Second Floor Batra Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh 160017 now however Correct Address : Life Insurance Corporation of India through Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Authorised Manager (Legal).

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Grievance Redressal Officer, The Marketing Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office, Model Town Road, Jiwan Parkash, Jalandhar.

3. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mall Road, Near Shimla Pahari, Hoshiarpur through its Branch Manager.

….Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus

1. Smt. Hardeep Kaur W/o Sh. Jaswinder Kumar D/o Sh.

Harbhajan Singh

2. Sh. Lovedeep Singh S/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh Both R/o Village Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur PIN-144404 .…Respondents/Complainants First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur in C.C. No. 12 of 2020.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellants : Sh. Navdeep Monga, Advocate For the respondents : None VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellants/Opposite Parties i.e. Life Insurance Corp. of India Ltd. and others, have filed the present Appeal through its Authorized Manager (Legal) to challenge the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondents/Complainants-Hardeep Kaur &

Anr. had been partly allowed.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondents/Complainants in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that their brother Sandeep Singh had purchased OPs Money Back Insurance Policy No. 131946072 on 08.03.2005. He had been paying the premiums of the same. Harbhajan Singh was mentioned as Nominee in the said Policy. Life Assured-Sandeep Singh had expired on 05.06.2018. During his life-time, Life Assured was unmarried. It was pleaded that the Complainants were the only legal heirs of the decreased life assured-Sandeep Singh as their father (nominee) and mother had already expired. After the death of the life assured, the Complainants approached the OP No.3 i.e. policy issuing branch and had explained the circumstances. They had prayed them to release the policy benefits to them, being the only legal heirs of the life assured. In this regard, a written representation dated 19.09.2019 was also submitted to OP No.3 but they had refused to accept their request on one pretext or the other.

4. Stating the act of the opposite parties No.2&3 to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that OPs No.2&3 be directed to release all the policy benefits alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to them. It was also prayed that due to suffering of harassment and mental harassment, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses on account of unnecessary involving into the litigation.

5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties had appeared and filed the written statement by raising certain preliminary objections that the Complaint was premature as till date they had not rejected the claim of the Complainants but only asked them to complete some formalities, which were required to be complie