^{UNIONTERRITORY,CHANDIGARH}

1]      

2]     Ms.Sifat Alag D/o Inder Beer Singh Alag, R/o 135, Phase-7, Mohali (Punjab) through her Mother/natural guardian Jasreen Kaur (as Ms.Sifat Alag is a junior at the time of filing of present complaint)

3]     Ms.Seerat Alag D/o InderBeer Singh Alag, R/o 135, Phase-7, Mohali (Punjab) through her mother/natural guardian Jasreen Kaur (as Ms.Seerat Alag is a Junior at the time of filing of present complaint)

 ^{…..Appellants/Complainants}

                                V E R S U S

1]     Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., One India Bulls Centre Towers, 16th

2]      

^{……Respondents/Opposite Parties}

BEFORE:

Argued by:Sh.Munish Goel, Adv. for the appellants.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

“12]             Taking into consideration the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as the factual position, we are of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if we direct the OPs to revive the policies in question on receipt of due premiums from the complainant.  Accordingly, we direct the OPs to send written intimation to the complainant informing him about the outstanding due premium in respect of all the three policies in question, and thereafter, the complainant shall deposit the same with the OPs whereupon, the OPs shall revive the policies forthwith. The complaint stands disposed of in above terms”.

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that complainant No.1 invested Rs.30,000/- with the Opposite Parties on 9.9.2008 vide receipt Annexure C-1. The Opposite Parties issued letter (Annexure C-2) dated 04.10.2008 to complainant No.1 and Policy No.002018933 was mentioned therein.  It was stated that complainant No.1 requested the Opposite Parties

3.                    It was further stated that complainant No.1, being allured by the representatives of Opposite Parties, paid Rs.1,01,000/- to the Opposite Parties

4.                    It was further stated that the Opposite Parties

5.                    It was further stated that the Opposite Parties 

6.                    In their written reply, the Opposite Parties stated that complainant No.1 submitted proposal/application form dated 9.9.2008 for the purchase of BSLI Saral Jiwan Life Plan against which the annual premium payable was Rs.29,930/-, Policy term was 20 years, pay term was also 20 years and sum assured was Rs.3,10,000/-. Consequently a Policy bearing No.002018933 was issued to complainant No.1, who  paid three regular premiums. It was further stated that thereafter, complainant No.1 filled up another proposal form dated 23.2.2012 for another plan namely Bachat Endowment Plan, Jagjit Singh-complainant No.1 

7.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

8.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, disposed of the complaint, as stated above. 

9.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/complainants.

10.                  We have heard the Counsel for the appellants and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

11.                  The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that three Policies were issued by the respondents/Opposite Parties for which the premium of Rs.1,01,000/-, Rs.1,01,000/-, and Rs45,995.67/- was to be paid annually for 20 years. 

12.                  The Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the terms and conditions of the Policies were not supplied despite repeated requests of the complainants.   

13.                                    It is not the case of the complainants that the signatures of the proposer were obtained by force or coercion on the proposal forms. Rather he himself signed the same after fully understanding the contents of the proposal form, the declaration etc. , held that “In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.” The District Forum was, thus, right in placing reliance upon the same.

14.                                    The Counsel for the appellants further    , wherein it was held as under:-

“Moreover, we have not been able to understand how the Complainant can claim refund of all the premia paid by him during the period of the policies remained alive and the LIC had covered the risk.  If during this period the Complainant had died (an even which did not occur) the insurer i.e. LIC would have had to pay the full amount due under the policies event though only some fraction of the premia would have been realized by that time by the insurer. Hence on cancelling the policies the Complainant is only entitled to the surrender values of the two policies. It is immaterial what circumstances prompted him to cancel the policies.”

15.                  The relevant part of Clause No.3 i.e Grace Period and Revival under the heading of other benefits 

                  : If you are unable to pay your premium by the due date, you will be given a grace period of 30 days and during this grace period all coverage under your Policy will continue. If you do not pay your premium within the grace period, the following will be applicable:

a)        xxxx

b)        xxxx

You can reinstate your Policy for its full coverage within two years from the due date of the first unpaid premium by paying all outstanding premiums together with interest as declared by us from time to time and by providing evidence of insurability satisfactory to us”.

16.                  Keeping in view afore-extracted Clause 

17.                  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

18.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

19.                  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

30.06.2014  [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.]

                                                                                                                       [DEV RAJ]

Sd/-

^{[PADMA PANDEY]}

^MEMBER

cmg