Haryana

StateCommission

A/309/2015

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANITA - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.DHULL

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      309 of 2015

Date of Institution:      01.04.2015

Date of Decision :       22.09.2015 

 

1.      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director, Registered Office at 1 DLF, Industrial Plot, 2^nd Floor, Moti Nagar, New Delhi.

 

2.      Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Subhash Park, Delhi Road, SCF-23, 1^st Floor, Rohtak.

 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Anita wife of late Shri Surender Singh, Resident of Village Dobh, District Rohtak.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri R.S. Dhull, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated January 14^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Rohtak, in Complaint No.487 of 2010.

2.      Surender Singh (since deceased)-husband of Anita-complainant-respondent, submitted ‘Proposal Form’ Annexure-A for obtaining Insurance Policy for Rs.5.00 lacs from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (for short the ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties-appellants, on July 26^th, 2008. He paid the premium instalment of Rs.2809/- through cheque No.562643 dated 26.07.2008. The proposer Surender Singh met with a vehicular accident on July 28^th, 2008 and died on July 29^th, 2008 due to injuries suffered by him. The Insurance Company issued Insurance Policy Exhibit CW-13, on July 30^th, 2008 commencing from July 30^th, 2008 to July 29^th, 2009.  Claim being filed by the complainant with the Insurance Company, was repudiated on the ground that the proposer died before acceptance of the premium and issuing the policy and therefore as per terms and conditions of the Policy, it was not a valid concluded contract between the parties.

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that on the date of acceptance of the premium and issuing the policy, the insured was not alive and therefore it was not a valid contract between the parties.

5.      Vide impugned order the District Forum accepted complaint issuing direction to the Insurance Company as under:-

“……..the opposite parties are directed to pay the sum insured of policy No.OG-09-0110-09901-00000004 amounting to Rs.500000/- (Rupees five lac only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.07.2010 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

6.      Notice of the appeal was duly served upon the respondent through Process Server of District Consumer Forum, Rohtak. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice.  

7.      The question for consideration is as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant or not?

8.      It is not disputed that the Proposal Form was submitted by the insured on July 26^th, 2008 by paying premium of Rs.2809/- which was accepted on July 30^th, 2008. It is also not disputed that the Insurance Policy was issued on July 30^th, 2008 whereas the insured had died on July 29^th, 2008.

9.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and others, (1984) 2 SCC 719, held as under:-

“Mere receipt and retention of premia after the death of the appellant or mere preparation of the policy document is not acceptance and, therefore, do not give rise to a contract. The general rule is that the contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and communicates his acceptance to the person making the offer whether the final acceptance is that of the assured or insurers, however, depends on the ways in which negotiations for an insurance have progressed. Mere delay in giving an answer cannot be construed as an acceptance. Though in certain human relationship silence to a proposal might convey acceptance but in the case of insurance proposal, silence does not denote consent and no binding contract arises until the person to whom an offer is made says or does something to signify his acceptance.”

 

10.    In Kona Mohan Rao Versus M/s New India Assurance Ltd. 2015 (2) CPR 393 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission held that mere acceptance of premium does not prove acceptance of proposal.

11.    In view of the above factual and legal position, it is clear that acceptance of a proposal for Insurance must be made before the death of the proposer and that acceptance must be signified in writing. The facts of the instant case are fully covered by the authorities cited supra and as such the Insurance Company was not liable to pay insured amount to the complainant.  The District Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated legal position and the evidence available on the record. No deficiency in service, as alleged, was committed by the Insurance Company.

12.    In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants-opposite parties against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 22.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL