Haryana

Sonipat

323/2014

SMT. GOPALI DEVI W/O GYAN CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER LIC OF INDIA,2. SATYAN S/O MAMAN PRAJAPATI - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Tyagi

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.323 of 2014.

                                Instituted on:27.11.2014.

                                Date of order:12.08.2015

 

Gopali Devi wife of Shri Gyan Chand, resident of village Garhi Jhajjar, tehsil Ganaur, distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                           Versus

1.The Branch Manager, LIC of India, MC road, Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat.

2.Shri Satyan son of Shri Maman, Parjapat, resident of village Garhi Jhajjar, tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat (agent of LIC code no.0081817C).

                                            ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Shri Ajay Tyagi Adv. for complainant.

           Shri OP Wadhwa Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Shri Krishan Saini,Adv.for respondent no.2.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

     SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

          D.V.RATHI……………………………………………………………MEMBER.

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant’s son Surender Kumar purchased  one policy no.179185112 from respondent no.2 for Rs.2 lacs under term and table no.179-20-20 on 7.9.2012 . The second installment of premium was due and payable by the insured Surender Kumar on or before 3/13 and on the demand of respondent no.2,  Surender Kumar made the payment of Rs.3429/- of second installment of premium before the date fixed.  But unfortunately the said Surender Kumar died in a rail accident on 4.8.2013 and thereafter, the complainant approached, intimated and made a request to the respondents to make the payment of claim amount of insured sum and accidental benefit, but of no use.  Later-on the complainant came to know that the respondent no.2 in collusion with respondent no.1 wrongly and illegally did not deposit the 2^nd installment of premium due in 3/13 with the intention to deprive of the complainant from receiving the insured amount.  However, under pressure, the respondent deposited the amount of Rs.3565/- with the respondent no.1 alongwith interest on 12.8.2013.  The complainant has completed all the required formalities and has submitted all the required documents with the respondent no.1 for making the payment of claim  amount, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondent no.1 has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. The complainant on 21.10.2014 served the respondents with legal notice, but the same has also not brought any fruitful result. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent no.1 has submitted that the policy in question was lying in a lapsed condition at the time of death of the policy holder. The second half yearly installment of premium was due on 7.3.2012 which was not paid even in the grace period of one month and was paid after the death of the policy holder on 12.8.2013.  The complainant is the nominee of the deceased, but she is not entitled for any relief.

          The respondent no.2  in his written statement has submitted that no payment of second installment was ever made to him. The main duty of the LIC agent is to assist the insured in reminding him the due date of premium of the policy well before the time.  The respondent no.2 twice reminded the deceased to deposit the premium, but the insured assured that he would himself deposit the premium amount after making the necessary arrangements for the same. Now after the death of the insured, the respondent no.2 is being falsely blamed for his no fault.   The complainant is not entitled for any claim amount as the policy was lying in a lapsed condition.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of  ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant’s son Surender Kumar purchased one policy no.179185112 from respondent no.2 for Rs.2 lacs under term and table no.179-20-20 on 7.9.2012 . The second installment of premium was due and payable by the insured Surender Kumar on or before 3/13 and on the demand of respondent no.2,  Surender Kumar made the payment of Rs.3429/- of second installment of premium before the date fixed.  But unfortunately the said Surender Kumar died in a rail accident on 4.8.2013 and thereafter, the complainant approached, intimated and made a request to the respondents to make the payment of claim amount of insured sum and accidental benefit, but of no use.  Later-on the complainant came to know that the respondent no.2 in collusion with respondent no.1 wrongly and illegally did not deposit the 2^nd installment of premium due in 3/13 with the intention to deprive of the complainant from receiving the insured amount.  However, under pressure, the respondent deposited the amount of Rs.3565/- with the respondent no.1 alongwith interest on 12.8.2013.  The complainant has completed all the required formalities and has submitted all the required documents with the respondent no.1 for making the payment of claim  amount, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondent no.1 has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that  the policy in question was lying in a lapsed condition at the time of death of the policy holder. The second half yearly installment of premium was due on 7.3.2012 which was not paid even in the grace period of one month and was paid after the death of the policy holder on 12.8.2013.  The complainant is the nominee of the deceased, but she is not entitled for any relief.   He further submitted that the agent has no authority to accept the premium on behalf of LIC.  In support of his contention he has relied upon the case law titled as LIC of India Vs.Girdhari Lal, CPC 2009(1) page 701 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that as per ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the agent of insurer has no authority to accept the premium on behalf of LIC- In the present case, deposit made by the agent after death of insured does not entitle claimants to get the amount under insurance policy-Order passed by Fora below are set aside and relief stands declined.

 on

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2  has submitted that  no payment of second installment was ever made to him. The main duty of the LIC agent is to assist the insured in reminding him the due date of premium of the policy well before the time.  The respondent no.2 twice reminded the deceased to deposit the premium, but the insured assured that he would himself deposit the premium amount after making the necessary arrangements for the same. Now after the death of the insured, the respondent no.2 is being falsely blamed for his no fault.   The complainant is not entitled for any claim amount as the policy was lying in a lapsed condition.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         From the pleadings of the complainant, one thing is clear that the premium of second installment which was payable on or before March, 2013 was deposited alongwith interest on 12.8.2013 to the tune of Rs.3565/-, whereas the actual premium was Rs.3429/- and the deceased Surender Kumar had died on 4.8.2013 i.e. before deposit of the premium on 12.8.2013.  So, it is crystal clear that at the time of death of the deceased life assured, the policy was lying in a lapsed condition and the premium was deposited after the death of the deceased.  So, in our view, the complainant is not entitled for any kind of claim from the respondents as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Thus, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:12.08.2015