Haryana

StateCommission

A/917/2016

MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AZAD SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

NITESH SINGHI

27 Jul 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.917 of 2016

                                                 Date of Institution: 03.10.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 27.07.2018

 

1. Max Life Insurance Company Limited., Plot No.90-A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana 122015, through its Divisional Manager.
2. Max Life Insurance Company Limited  SCO No.11, Ist Floor, Behind Sagar Cinema at Main Market, Sector 16, Faridabad, through authorized officer/signatory.

…..Appellants

Versus

Azad Singh S/o Sh. Dhuman Singh, R/o H.No.204, Police Line, Sector 30, Faridabad.

                   …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

Present:              Shri Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for appellants.

                             Mr.P.S.Tobaria, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

As per order dated 25.07.2018 contained in letter No.3264, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

2.      The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present appeal are that, complainant’s son obtained Plan Life Pay money back policy for Rs.1,00,000/-. Personal accident benefit effective from 22.03.2011.  Complainant’s son met with an accident on 03.06.2013.  FIR No.128 dated 05.06.2013 was lodged in P.S.DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon.  During treatment, his son has expired on 17.07.2013.  Claim filed alongwith relevant documents by the complainant.  He requested several times to O.ps. to allow the claim, but, to no  consequence. Hence the complainant was entitled to receive the claim amount of the deceased alongwith interest and other expenses also. 

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments.  While taking the preliminary objections it has been alleged that on the date of death of the deceased life assured, complainant’s son has not paid the renewal premium due on 22.02.2013.  O.Ps. had duly intimated the customer regarding the renewal of premium.  It has been further alleged that deceased life assured failed to pay the premium within  the grace period and policy was lapsed, so he was not entitled to death claim and other compensation as prayed for.

3.      On merits, it has been alleged that death claim was repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy.  Due to non payment of premium, the policy was lapsed.  All other averments were denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and  directed the O.P.No.1 to pay an amount of Rs. One lac with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and Rs.2200/- as compensation towards mental agony besides Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses  to the complainant.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

6.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Nitesh Singhi, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.P.S.Tobaria learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      As per the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the basic and foremost question which requires adjudication of this court to as to why whether the complainant Azad Singh who is now a respondent is entitled to get any compensation on account of death  who sustained the injuries in a fatal accident.

8.      As far as facts of the present case are concerned, are not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that an insurance policy was issued by the present appellants covering the accidental claim of the complainant. However on one occasion, the premium was paid and it was not renewed.  As a matter of fact, as per the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is the duty of the present appellants to serve a notice or to give a proper intimation for depositing the premium for the purpose of renewal of the insurance policy and the intimation has not been given.  Contrary to it, it has been vehemently argued by Sh.Nitesh Singhi, learned counsel for the appellants that after issuing the insurance policy a contractual obligation comes into force.  It ends at the moment when there is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy or when the premium or subsequent premium has not been paid for renewal of the insurance policy.  In the present case as per Annexure A-3, which is available at  page No.72 and Annexure R-4, it is crystal clear that  insurance policy had been lapsed and expiry of the period w.e.f. 22.03.2013 as premium was not paid for renewal of the insurance policy and as such, the claimant submitted claim on account of the death of Deepak dated 17.07.2013,  it was informed that the death claim is not admissible.  Similarly the details of the previous payment have also been mentioned in the Annexure A-4.

9.      With the above observation and discussion, it is apparently clear that the complainant was under obligation to deposit the premium for the purpose of renewal of the insurance policy and failing thereto, the contractual obligation comes to an end and no claim could be allowed for causing the death of Deepak and as such the learned District Forum has erred in accepting the complaint and allowing the compensation of Rs.One lac alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization of the entire amount as well as the compensation of Rs.2200/- and litigation charges of Rs.1100/- to the complainant and resultantly while accepting the appeal, impugned order dated 11.05.2016 which is not legally sustainable stands set aside for all intents and purposes.

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

 

July 27th, 2018                                         Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.