Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1276

Jaswinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Manaise

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1276 of 2012

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 27.09.2012

                                                          Date of Decision:  06.04.2015

 

Jaswinder Kaur wd/o Surjit Singh resident of House No.271, Village Jhanda Lubana, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

 

                                                                   …Appellant/Complainant.

 

                                      Versus

 

1.       Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza, Airport          Road, Yerwada, Pune through its General Manager/CEO.

 

2.       Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, Balaji   Chamber, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amrtisar,      Punjab through its Manager.

 

                                                          …..Respondent/Opposite Parties

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 02.08.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

Present:-

 

          For the appellant              :         Sh.A.S Manaise, Advocate.

          For the respondents        :         Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the  opposite parties in the complaint), challenging  order dated 02.08.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Amritsar, accepting the complaint of the complainant directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- payable as premium by Surjit Singh life assured to the complainant, whereas rest of insurance claim of the complainant now appellant was declined. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the appellant.

2.      The complainant Jaswinder Kaur has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that Surjit Singh her husband since deceased was holder of the life insurance policy bearing No.0114515203 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by adopting the policy of the OPs against premium of Rs.50,000/- paid to OP No.2. The date of commencement of the policy was 27.11.2008 and she was appointed as nominee of her husband. The husband of the complainant Surjit Singh unfortunately expired on 27.11.2008 and complainant lodged the insurance claim, being legal nominee of Surjit Singh life assured since deceased by submitting the requisite documents on 29.09.2009, but the insurance claim was not released by the OPs. Legal notice dated 22.07.2010 was also sent to the OPs, but no response was received from the OPs. Thus, complainant has filed the present complaint directing the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.5 lac as insurance claim to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum besides Rs.25,000/-, as compensation  for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against OPs, in as much as no legal and valid contract came into being under Indian Contract Act 1872. It was further pleaded in preliminary objections by the OPs that Surjit Singh since deceased during his life time filled up the proposal form for insurance on 26.11.2008 by paying the premium of Rs.50,000/- towards proposal deposit for making proposal for the insurance, which was accepted and policy of insurance was issued on 29.11.2008 bearing policy No.114515203 without any knowledge of this fact that Surjit Singh proposer had already died on 27.11.2208. As per settled law of contract, any offer  becomes contract between the parties only when the proposal made by one person is accepted by the other and the acceptance of proposal is validly communicated to the proposer. It was further averred in preliminary objections that acceptance of the proposal was never communicated to the proposer Surjit Singh and policy of insurance was actually issued on 29.11.2008 and the proposer Surjit Singh had already died on 27.11.2008 before the communication of the acceptance of the proposal. No communication contract came in to  being between the parties. The policy documents were dispatched to the proposer Surjit Singh on 30.11.2008, hence no valid contract came into being between the parties. The complaint was also resisted even on merits on the above-referred grounds by the OPs by averring that no valid contract came into existence between the parties. It was further emphasized that unless and until the contract is concluded between the parties, there is no responsibility of the Ops in this case.

                  

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence the affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A, death certificate of Surjit Singh Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, postal receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5, reminder given by Bajaj Allianz Head Office dated 3.06.2010 Ex.C-6. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence copy of details of policy Ex.R-1, proposal form Ex.R-2 consisting of four pages, Know Your Customer Form Ex.R-3 consisting two pages, copy of voter ID Card of Surjit Singh Ex.R-4, copy of letter by Jaswinder Kaur Ex.R-5, copy of death certificate Ex.R-6, copy of voter card of Surjit Singh Ex.R-7, copy of policy document Ex.R-8. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Amritsar, partly accepted the complaint of the complainant and ordered the payment of the premium amount whereas it declined claim of the complainant regarding the release of the insurance amount with interest. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, Amritsar, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.  

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.     

6.      We advert to evidence on the record to settle the controversy between the parties in this case. The point involved for adjudication in this case is as  to whether concluded contract came into being between the parties or not. The pleadings as well as affidavits placed on record by the parties have been duly examined by us. Undisputedly, Surjit Singh husband of the complainant filled up the proposal form for taking insurance policy on 26.11.2008, vide Ex.R-2 on the record. Surjit Singh proposer died on 27.11.2009, vide copy of death certificate Ex.R-1 on the record. The proposal form was filled by Surjit Singh on 26.11.2008 and his death took place on the next day on 27.11.2008 and these are undisputed facts on the record in this case. Know Your Customer Form is Ex.R-3 consisting two pages, copy of voter card is Ex.R-4, letter by Jaswinder Kaur complainant Ex.R-5 is on the record. The complainant placed on record Ex.R-6, which  is reminder coupled with postal receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 on the record. Ex.C-2 is legal notice pertaining to the postal receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 on the record. The submission of the counsel for the complainant is that the policy was to inure with effect from 27.11.2008 only and hence the death of the Surjit Singh which took place on 27.11.2008 is duly covered by insurance policy. On the other hand, the forceful submission of counsel for the OPs now respondents in this appeal is that mere proposal will not  constitute any valid contract between the parties. The proposal is to be accepted when acceptance is communicated to the proposer only, then the contract comes into being between the parties under the Contract Act. The OPs swore affidavit contending that insurance policy was issued on 29.11.2008 whereas proposer Surjit Singh had already died on 27.11.2008. It was further submitted that policy was dispatched on 30.11.2008 to the proposer, hence, there was no concluded contract between the parties. The matter has been examined by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as LIC of India & Another Versus… Smt. K.Aruna Kumari, reported in 1995(3) CPR Page 62/63 wherein it has been held that mere receipt of initial amount towards proposal and retention of it until after death does not amount to acceptance of contract of insurance. Law laid down by Apex Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India  Vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba & others  ( 1984 AIR SC 1014) is as follows :-

          "….. A contract of insurance concludes only when the party to          whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and        communicates his acceptance to the person making offer.   Similarly, the mere receipts and retention of premium until after           the death of the applicant or mere preparation of policy documents is not acceptance and does not give rise to the       contract. Acceptance must be signified by some act or acts          agreed on by the parties or from which the law raises a           presumption of acceptance."

7.      On the basis of law laid down by the Apex Court as discussed in this authority, the contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party who made the offer has communicated the  acceptance thereof. Similarly, the mere receipt and retention of the premium until after death of the applicant or the mere preparation of the policy documents is not acceptance. Acceptance must be signified by some act or acts agreed on by the parties after which the law raises a presumption of acceptance. Similar view has also been held by National Commission in LIC of India.. Vs. Mrs. Bimla Routary reported in II (1993) Consumer Protection Judgments, Page 146-147 wherein National Commission held that insured made proposal  to Corporation  on 22.02.1987, premium paid on 11.03.1987, proposal papers submitted on 14.03.1987, on 19.03.1987 proposal was accepted, policy issued covering risk from 27.03.1987. On 15.03.1987 proposer died. It was held that there is nowhere mentioned that the proposer dies before acceptance of the proposal, there is no concluded contract of insurance.   

8.      In view of the above-referred matter, the findings of the District Forum are unassailable in the order under appeal to the effect that the proposer Surjit Singh had already died before the acceptance of the proposal was communicated by the OPs. The District Forum has rightly ordered to refund  the premium amount to the complainant of Rs.50,000/- whereas it correctly declined the insurance claim of the complainant. The order of the District Forum calls for no interference in this appeal and same is hereby affirmed in this appeal.

9.      As a result of our above discussion, there is no merit in the  appeal  and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 31.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                    (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

April 6   2015.                                                                

(ravi)