Judgment:
Oral Order:-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member:
This is an appeal filed by original complainant, whose complaint was dismissed by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban by order dated 02/11/2007.
The complainant had fled consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of LIC. One Late Shri P.Ramchandra Kudva had taken 9 insurance policies from LIC. In one of the policies, the complainant was nominated as nominee. It was policy bearing no.914993616. Said Shri P.D.Kudva died on 26/06/2002. Opponent asked nominee to furnish all the details of the policy. According to complainant, opponent has sanctioned claim in respect of other policies within three days. But he was not informed about the policies paid by LIC to other nominees. The complainant pleaded that with malafide arbitrary action settlement of claim in respect of policy no.914993616 was delayed for 292 days. Opponent paid interest @ 8.25% p.a. on 12/07/2003, but the complainant claimed 18% interest and other financial loss. He therefore, challenged the order before insurance Ombudsmen, who did not give any relief and confirmed the order of LIC of paying interest @ 8.25% on the said policy to the nominee for delayed payment. According to complainant, he suffered financial loss due to malafide and arbitrary action of the opposite party in causing inordinate delay in payment. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. He also claimed 18% p.a. interest as against 8.25% p.a. interest granted by LIC.
Opposite party filed written statement and pleaded that complaint was absolutely false and frivolous. According to opposite party, Shri P.D.Kudva issued letter dated 05/08/2002 to the opposite party informing that life assured died on 26/06/2002 and requested for claim form. Accordingly, Shri P.D.Kudva was asked to comply with necessary requirement for settling the claim vide letter dated 22/08/2002. The dispute was taken to City Civil Court by filing Suit No.642/2002 against the opponent, who was defendant no.2. While handling the said litigation, docket of policy no. 914993616 was misplaced. Hence, claim could not be settled at the earliest. Since, there was delay of 292 days in settling the claim, it was compensated by granting interest of Rs.31,117/- i.e. @8.25%. Complainant challenged this before insurance Ombudsmen. Insurance Ombudsmen directed LIC to pay penal interest @ 8.25 % for delay in the said policy but no further relief was granted. LIC pleaded that in the circumstances, there is no consumer dispute and complaint should be dismissed with cost.
Forum below after considering affidavits and documents and upon hearing Ld.Advocates for both the parties held that the complainant failed to prove that there is deficiency in service on part of opposite party and was pleased to dismiss the complaint and as such, complainant has filed this appeal.
We heard appellant in person and none appeared for the respondent.
We perused the impugned order passed by the Forum below dismissing the complaint and we are finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent/LIC. No doubt there is delay in sanctioning the claim payable to the nominee but delay was justified because civil suit was filed in respect of said policy in Bombay City Civil Court and according to LIC, while dealing with the said litigation docket file of original policy was misplaced and thus, there was delay of 292 days in settling the claim. Delay is not intentional and deliberate and for delayed payment LIC had already paid interest @8.25%. So, LIC acted reasonably in settling the claim of the nominee/complainant herein and for that delayed payment they had already paid 8.25% interest. Therefore, there seem to be no merit in the appeal preferred by the complainant. The complainant wants to make profit out of delay occurred in settling the claim. He is referring the financial loss because of delayed payment. For financial loss he has not adduced any evidence and moreover, financial loss cannot be a matter of consumer dispute. If, he wants something more by way of financial loss, he should have filed Civil Suit and not the consumer complaint. Be that as it may be. We are finding no substance in the appeal filed by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of LIC. Hence, appeal found is appearing to be groundless. As such, we pass the following order:-
Order:
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.