BRANCH MANAGER LIC OF INDIA Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been heard ex parte as respondent did not appear inspite of the notice. The O. P. (LIC) has referred this appeal against the order dated 29.12.1995 passed by District Forum, West Champaran, Bettaih in Complaint Case No.35/1995 directing the complainant to submit Form-E in the office of the appellant O. P. and thereafter appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as sum assured and the accrued bonus thereon to the complainant besides a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that complainant Most. Savitri Devi filed a complaint case before the District Forum alleging therein that policy holder Ram Chandra Prasad died on 18.3.1994. Thereafter she filed a claim of the policy but inspite of several requests she did not receive the payment. She is the authorised person to receive the payment of her husband. The O. P. (LIC) appeared and filed show cause alongwith relevant documents including personal statement regarding health filed by the life assured and incomplete Form-E and also a letter dated 26.7.1993 written by Most. Bhagmati Devi who claimed the death claim along with Forms A and E submitted by her. The main contention of the appellant was that the LIC has not been made party hence case was not maintainable besides the death claim could not be settled because the claim Form-E which is required for settlement of a policy holder who was a Government servant was not filed. The required information in column-3 of Form -E was not furnished, therefore, the claim could not be settled. Under the claim Form-E the employer is required to give the information about the absence from duty during the period of three years prior to period revival of the policy and on the leave availed on the ground of health then the copy of the leave application and the certificate, if any, must be sent with declaration in the prescribed proforma. The policy in question which was taken in the year 1989 lapsed due to non-payment of premium. The policy was again revived on 20.6.1992. At that time the policy holder has submitted a statement regarding condition of his health. The policy was revived on 20.6.1992 and the life assured died on 18.4.1993 within a period of one year. Therefore, the LIC had no objection but to treat the instant death claim as early claim. In this view of the matter the investigation was held and it was reported by the Investigating Officer that the certain information required in Form-E was not in order. Accordingly, a letter was written to the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Gandak Project, Bettiah where the life assured was an employee to give the details about the leave account of the assured for the period 29.6.1989 to 28.6.1992. The death certificate of the life assured mentions as Motipur but in the claim case it is mentioned as Patna. A letter was also written by the LIC to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna to send the bed head ticket of the deceased regarding his ailment. It is further alleged that one Bhagmati Devi claimed herself as wife of life assured Ram Chandra Prasad and also submitted Forms A, B, C and E. Therefore, there were two claimants before the Corporation and it was necessary to decide who is the real claimant and this has not been decided as yet. In view of the dispute with regard to the actual claimant the proper Forum would be Civil Court and not the District Forum. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that District Forum has wrongly held that the complainant is the real claimant without deciding the disputed fact of the two claimants and has also wrongly held that in absence of the complete E Form the complainant was entitled to the amount of the insurance policy.

(3.) We have gone through the impugned order carefully. It is mentioned in the impugned order that life assured Ram Chandra Prasad was a Government servant and E Form has not been filed along with claim petition by the complainant in spite of objection raised by the LIC. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that place of death of life assured is mentioned at two places one at Patna and another at Motipur but held that this fact is not important for the settlement of the claim. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that besides the claimant one Bhagmati Devi is also making claim of the amount of the life assured. The District Forum held that complainant is the real claimant and thereafter, allowed the claim of the complainant. We are of the view that all these facts require detail investigation and a finding thereupon is not possible in the summary proceeding and for such finding the proper Forum will be the Civil Court. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is not in accordance with law and is fit to be set-aside.