DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 424-12
Date of Institution : 15.6.2012
Date of Decision : 26.2.2015
Rajesh Kumar son of Ramesh Kumar
Suman w/o Rajesh Kumar Both residents of 1489/7, Shiv Gali Kucha Isha Ram, Swank Mandi,Amritsar
...Complainants
Vs.
Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., having Regd.office at One Indiabulls Centre Tower I, 15th and 15th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapal Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400 013 having inter-alia branch office at B-Block,IIIrd Floor, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh.Kuldeep Bawa, Adv
For the opposite party : Sh. Sumit Sharma,Adv.
-2-
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Rajesh Kumar & Suman wife of Rajesh Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that their son Ankit Dhawan obtained insurance policy from the opposite party bearing No. 004003294 on 28.3.2010 for sum assured Rs. 6,00,000/-. According to the complainant policy holder Ankit Dhawan used to make payment of half yearly installments worth Rs. 10033/- through the authorized agent Mr. Alap Khanna, who used to collect the amount of installment from the policy holder and deposit the same with the opposite party. Lastly the authorized agent collected the installment of Rs. 10033/- from Ankit Dhawan on 27.6.2011 and deposited the same with the opposite party on 4.7.2011. Complainants have alleged that unfortunately their son died on 3.7.2011 as a natural death. Complainants being nominee lodged claim with the opposite party, but the opposite party refused to accept the claim of the complainants on the ground that the policy stood lapsed due to non payment of
-3-
installment as the installment was paid on 4.7.2011. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay death claim of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that son of the complainants Ankit Dhawan purchased a Dream Endowment Plan from the opposite party by filling in application form No. A-34834083. The policy term was 30 years, premium payment term was also 30 years, policy premium Rs. 20066/-. It was submitted that deceased life assured paid first half yearly installment on 26.3.2010 and the next half yearly installment was due on 28.9.2010 and the same was paid within time. The next installment was due on 28.3.2011 but the deceased life assured did not pay that installment and the policy was lapsed after a grace period of one month on 28.4.2011. It was submitted that opposite party issued several notices to the DLA but the DLA did not pay any heed for the same and did not get the policy revived. It was further submitted that complainant putforth a false and concocted story before this Forum, just to play a fraud with the opposite party . The complainants were very well aware of the fact that the policy obtained by DLA had already been lapsed on 28.4.2011 due to non payment of the renewal premium against the policy, so the complainant deposited the premium on 4.7.2011 i.e. after the death of deceased life assured who died on
-4-
3.7.2011. While submitting that the claim of the complainants has rightly been repudiated and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant No.1 tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21, affidavit of Sh. Alap Khanna Ex.CW2/A.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jai Kumar Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP39.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that Ankit Dhawan son of the complainants got insurance policy bearing No. 004003294 from the opposite party at half yearly premium of Rs. 10,035/- on 28.3.2010 with sum assured Rs. 6,00,000/-. The complainants submitted that insured Ankit Dhawan used to make payment of premium worth Rs. 10,035/- to the opposite party through Alap Khanna, authorized person of opposite party. Said Ankit Dhawan made payment of two half yearly installments of Rs. 10,035/- to the opposite party i.e firstly at the time of taking policy on 28.3.2010 and then on 27.9.2010. Thereafter Ankit Dhawan made
-5-
payment of the next premium to said Alap Khanna on 27.6.2011. However, said Alap Khanna deposited the premium with the opposite party on 4.7.2011 . Unfortunately Mr. Ankit Dhawan insured, son of the complainants died on 3.7.2011. Complainants who are nominees of Ankit Dhawan, insured (hereinafter to be called DLA) lodged claim regarding the death of their son Ankit Dhawan with the opposite party, but the opposite party repudiated the claim on the plea that the policy stood lapsed due to non payment of installments as the installment was paid on 4.7.2011. The complainant submitted that the payment was received by the authorized agent of the opposite party Sh. Alap Khanna from the DLA on 27.6.2011, howeve he deposited the same with the opposite party on 4.7.2011. So it was due to the fault on the part of the agent of the opposite party that the policy oif the complainant lapsed and not due to fault on the part of the DLA. Repudiation of the claim by the opposite party on the aforesaid ground amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that DLA has obtained Dream Endowment Plan (Insu.policy) from the opposite party by filling in application/proposal form A-34834083 Ex.OP3 on the basis of which the opposite party issued insurance policy Ex.C-3 to the DLA. The policy term was 30 years, premium payment term was also 30 years, with frequency of half yearly premium, amount Rs. 10,033/-. The DLA made payment of first installment at the time of -6-
taking the policy on 28.3.2010 vide receipt Ex.C-2, he made payment of second half yearly installment in the month of September 2010 . The next premium was due on 28.3.2011, but the DLA did not make the payment of that premium amount. Resultantly after a lapse of grace period of one month, the policy lapsed on 28.4.2011. The DLA expired on 3.7.2011 when the insurance policy was not in existence. As such opposite party was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant on account of death of DLA. Opposite party, therefore, treated the claim of the complainant regarding the death of DLA under the aforesaid policy as “No claim” and it was duly conveyed to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that Ankit Dhawan, son of the complainants got insurance policy bearing No. 004003294 Ex.C-3 from the opposite party by filling in and signing the proposal form Ex.OP3 . The policy term was for 30 years, premium payment term was also 30 years, with frequency of premium half yearly, premium amount Rs. 10,033/-. The DLA made payment of first installment at the time of taking the policy on 28.3.2010 . He paid the second premium in the month of September 2010 i.e. on 28.9.2010. The next premium was due on 28.3.2011 but the DLA did not make the payment of the third premium to the opposite party. Consequently after a lapse of grace period of one
-7-
month, the policy lapsed on 28.4.2011. Neither the DLA nor any person made any effort to revive the policy on payment of the amount of premium due, plus renewal charges, if any. Said Ankit Dhawan, DLA expired on 3.7.2011 as is evident from the death certificate Ex.C-15. No doubt the complainant deposited the amount of next premium on 4.7.2011 i.e. after the death of DLA. But the DLA could not revive the policy which had already lapsed on 28.4.2011. The plea of the complainant that one Alap Khanna ,authorized agent of the opposite party used to collect the premium amount from the DLA and used to deposit the same with the opposite party. Said Alap Khanna collected the amount of third premium from the DLA on 27.6.2011, however, he deposited the amount of third premium with the opposite party on 4.7.2011, as such there is no fault on the part of the DLA, is not tenable becuase the policy had already lapsed on 28.4.2011 and the DLA made payment of premium to said Alap Khanna even on 28.6.2011 when 2 months had already elapsed, when the policy of DLA stood lapsed becuase neither the DLA nor any person on behalf of DLA made any effort to revive/renew the policy after its lapse on 28.4.2011. So the payment of premium even if made by the DLA to Alap Khanna , the alleged agent of the opposite party on 27.6.2011, is of no help to the DLA or complainants.
9. Moreover, the complainants have also failed to prove on record that said Alap Khanna was the agent of the opposite parties . They could not produce any code
-8-
number of said Alap Khanna issued by the opposite party nor could produce any document to prove that Alap Khanna was the agent of the opposite party and he was authorized to collect the amount of premium from the insured particularly when the opposite party has categorically stated that no such Alap Khann was the authorized agent of the opposite party. Moreover, when the complainants as well as Alap Khanna came to know that DLA had already expired on 3.7.2011, then what was the fun to deposit the amount of premium on behalf of DLA on 4.7.2011 and that too against the policy which had already lapsed on 28.4.2011 due to non payment of premium.
10. Consequently we hold that opposite party was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant regarding death of DLA.
11. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
26.2.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
