KANTI DEVI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A consumer complaint in this case was filed by the petitioner herein before the District Forum. According to the petitioner, she is sister of insured person late Rajesh Singh and also nominee in the policy in question. The insured had taken a personal accident policy for Rs. 2,50,000/- and in the event of death, the insured was allowed to a benefit of another Rs.2,50,000/- thus the benefit totalling to Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid. The policy was taken on 07.09.2001 for a period of one year, i.e, upto 06.09.2002. Earlier also, the insured had taken a policy from 1.8.99 to 31.7.2000 and later the same policy from 7.9.2001 to 6.9.2002. The policy in question, therefore, was the third policy taken by the insured during his life time. During the currency of the third policy, the insured Rajesh Singh died due to an accident on 16.3.2002. A FIR was lodged and postmortem was also carried out. After investigation, the police submitted final form as the occurrence true but the accused could not be traced out. Local Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the final form . The complainant being the nominee under the policy submitted a claim to the OP Insurance Co. but on failure to get any reply, she sent a legal notice thorough her lawyer. The OP Co. appointed a surveyor who sent same questionnaire to the complainant asking for information on certain questions including (i) why she has claimed the amount when the wife of insured Rajesh Singh, namely, Sangita Devi is alive and who has also made a separate claim for the amount under the policy; (ii) why she has not made Sangita Devi a party to the matter when she is a necessary party. The complainant replied to these queries stating hat she was nearest relation and nominee of the deceased and that the insured Rajesh Singh was not married and that Sangita Devi is not his wife. The surveyor in his report raised doubts on the cause of death of the insured Rajesh Singh and it was also stated in the report that the policy appears to be highly doubtful which has been taken by playing fraud and committing forgery and hence it was recommended by the surveyor that the complainant should not be paid the amount under the policy. The surveyor further recommended that wife of insured Rajesh Singh is legal heir and rightful person to receive the amount of the policy and not the complainant. On the basis of the report of the surveyor, the OP Co. repudiated the claim and hence a consumer complaint was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency on the part of the OP Insurance Co. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced, the District Forum held that the case suffers from defect of party and a serious question of law regarding the claim of Sangita Devi is also involved in this case which is only triable by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The District Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint as not maintainable before it. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed appeal before the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna ( State Commission for short) challenging this order. The appeal of the complainant, however, did not find any favour with the State Commission and by its impugned order dated 03.11.2006 which is under challenge through the present revision petition, has dismissed the appeal of the complainant and upheld the order of the District Forum.

(2.) We have gone through the orders of the fora below and perused the record. We have also heard the counsel for the parties in the matter. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal of the complainant has made the following observations:-

(3.) We agree with the above view taken by the State Commission and do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.