DELAY IN CLAIM COSTS LOOSING THE MONEY

A consumer forum here has dismissed a man's plea seeking insurance payment on his son's death in a road accident in 2006, saying he failed to give "sufficient reasons" for filing the claim six years after the incident. The North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by N K Goel, dismissed the plea of Delhi resident Digamber Jain, who had sought insurance cover amount of his son from a Union Bank of India's branch here six years after his death. "... we hold that the complainant (Jain) has failed to prove that there exist sufficient reasons for not filing complaint within stipulated period. Therefore, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay," the forum, also comprising its members Asha Kumar and Nishat Ahmad Alvi, said. The forum said the delay of six years in seeking the claim was a "very long period" and Jain must give some convincing reason for it. "This may be true that the complainant must have forgotten to think about filing of the claim before the Bank for some time after the sudden and tragic death of his son in a road accident. However, six years is a very long period. "In order to justify delay of six years, he must have assigned some convincible reason and in case he had got some medical treatment he should have filed medical prescription slips/medical report on the file," the forum said. According to Jain, his son was having a savings account with the bank with personal accident insurance of Rs two lakh on his ATM card provided by the bank but no policy was issued by the bank. Jain's son died on August 2, 2006 in a road accident but he intimated the bank only in April 2012 regarding the claim amount. The claim, however, was rejected by the bank on the ground that intimation was to be given within three months from date of the incident. 
While rejecting the plea, the forum also noted that Jain failed to provide any information about his son's wife, children or mother, who were his son's primary heirs. "Admittedly, father of a Hindu male is a class-II heir. Wife, children and mother etc. are the class-I heirs of a deceased Hindu male. The complainant has not whispered even a single word with regard to the fact whether the deceased Deepak Jain was married and, if so, had any child at the time of his death. He has also not disclosed whether the mother of the deceased was alive at the time of his death. "In case there is no class-I heir, only then class-II heir is entitled to claim the insurance cover amount. For this reason also, the complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, we hold that there was/ is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (Bank)," the forum said. Jain had earlier also approached the district forum which dismissed his plea in September 2012 on the ground of delay. Thereafter, he had moved the State Commission which asked him to file a fresh complaint before the district forum along with an application for condonation of delay.