ORDER

1.       The present Complaint is filed by the Complainant Nikhil Sharma through his father Sh. Ajay Sharma. The Complainant was the nominee in the Insurance Policy taken his deceased grandfather Sh. Gopal Dass. Opposite Party No.1 is Insurance Company. Opposite Party No.2 is a Bank engaged inter alia in providing financial facilities to its Customers.

2.       The case of the Complainant is that the representative of Opposite Party No.1 approached and visited the deceased grandfather of the Complainant at the behest of Sh. Jairam and Sh. Pardeep Kr. Shukla, the then Branch Manager and Asst. Manager respectively in Karnataka Bank Ltd., Varanasi, Opposite Party No.2. They assured the credibility of M/s Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, as highly reputed and esteemed Insurance Company in the field of Life Insurance. On their advice, Mr. Gopal Dass took three MetLife Life Insurance Policies on following terms:-

Opposite Party No.1 issued the aforesaid Life Insurance Policies only after conducting medical tests. Sh. Nikhil Sharma (Complainant herein), the minor grandson of the deceased was appointed as assignee/appointee/nominee. Sh. Gopal Dass expired on 25.10.2011. On 24.11.2011, the Complainant filed Insurance Claim for all three Policies with Opposite Party No.1 for an amount of Rs.1,35,00,000/- along with relevant documents. Opposite Party No. 1 repudiated the claim against all Policies, vide letter dated 05.03.2012, on the ground that the Life Assured had supressed the material fact relating to his income.  However, Opposite Party No.1 paid the following amount to the Complainant: -

The Complainant wrote several letters to Opposite Party No. 1 refuting and controverting the Demand Drafts, but Opposite Party No.1 did not reply. The Complainant also wrote letter to Opposite Party No. 2 to resolve the grievance with Opposite Party No.1 as the Policy was purchased through Opposite Party No. 2, but they also remained silent. Opposite Party No.1 did not adduce any evidence to justify the repudiation.

3.       Aggrieved by repudiation of the claim, the Complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman by filing three separate Complaints. The Insurance Ombudsman rejected the Complaints, vide order dated 12.03.2014, on the ground of delay as well as pecuniary jurisdiction as the amount exceeded Rs.20 Lakhs in each Policy. Ombudsman also observed that the Complaints against the agent were not maintainable and the subject matter of forgery of signatures etc. did not fall within their jurisdiction. It was also observed that as the Complainant had also approached other Forum, the Complaint was not maintainable. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed this Complaint with the following prayer:-

“a) Direct all the Opposite Parties to pay the amount of Insurance Policy to the complainant i.e. Rs.1,35,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Five Lacs) along with interest @ 18% per annum, till the date of realization of the above;

b) Award another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lac) as and by way of compensation on account of unnecessary harassment and mental agony caused by the Opposite Parties in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties above named by holding them jointly and severally liable for payment of the same;

c) Award costs of the proceedings/litigation expenses and counsel fees Rs.55,000/- (Fifty Five Thousand);

d) Pass any other further order (s), as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit, proper, just and expedient in the interest of justice.”

4.       The Opposite Parties resisted the Complaint by filing separate replies. Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the Complainant had not approached this Commission with clean hands. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Complainant has combined the claim of three different Insurance Policies in order to invoke the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.