BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 05/08/2011
Date of Order : 30/04/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
C.C. No. 418/2011
Between
Sherly John, | :: | Complainant |
W/o. Late P.M. John, Muttathara House, Kakkoor. P.O., Koothattukulam. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
Branch Manager, | :: | Opposite Party |
LIC of India, Muvattupuzha – 686 661. |
| (By Adv. P.D. Joseph, Perayil, South Janatha Road, Palarivattom, Cochin - 25) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :
The complainant's husband had taken an LIC policy on 28-10-1994. The sum assured was Rs. 80,000/-. He had remitted the premium till 28-10-2010. However, he failed to remit the premium amount due on 28-10-2010. The facts while so, the husband of the complainant the insured died on 29-01-2011 due to heart failure, that is within 2 months from the date of expiry of the grace period. The claim application of the complainant for insurance claim was partly allowed by the opposite party. They paid only Rs. 13,214/- against the sum assured of Rs. 80,000/-. The opposite party can deny the insurance benefits only when the deceased fails to revive the policy on or before 11-08-2011. The complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs. 79,092/- along with bonus accrued. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party :
The opposite party issued a policy to the husband of the complainant with risk commencing from 28-10-1994. The policy holder paid the premium upto 28-10-2010 only. Thereafter, the policy lapsed due to the non-payment of subsequent premium. Since the policy holder died on 29-01-2011, the opposite party paid the paid up value of the insurance that is the full refund of 16 years premium to the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is entitled to get that amount alone. The opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on her side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The only point that came up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the full benefit of the policy. Admittedly, the deceased availed an insurance policy with risk commencing from 28-10-1994. It is not in dispute that the deceased failed to remit the premium with effect since 28-10-2010. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant died on 29-01-2011. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy holder is not entitled to revive the policy after the death of the policy holder. The opposite party has paid the amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. We cannot fasten any liability or find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the full benefit of the policy especially, when the policy lapsed prior to the death of the insured. So much, so that any finding to the contrary would amount to want of legal finality. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April 2012
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of information to policy holder. |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 09-06-2011 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the policy schedule |
“ B2 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 18-07-1998 |
Depositions :- |
|
|
DW1 | :: | V.V. Subramanian – op.pty |
=========
