DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC-   60   of   2015

 

Smt. Gulapi Debbarma,

W/O- Late Padma Kumar Debbarma,

Rajchintaipara, 

District- West Tripura. ...........Complainant.

 

  ___VERSUS___

 

1. Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Agartala Branch No-1,

H.G. Basak Road,

Agartala, West Tripura. 

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Jirania Branch,

A.A. Road, Jirania, West Tripura.

 

3. Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Silchar Divisional Office, 

Meherpur, Silchar, Assam,

Pin- 788015. .........Opposite parties.

    

      __________PRESENT__________

 

  SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Mr. Faruk Miah,

 Mr. James Debbarma,

 Advocates.

 

For the O.P. : Sri Prahlad Kr. Debnath,

 Advocate.  

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  21.08.2017

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

This case is filed by Smt. Gulapi Debbarma against the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI). Petitioners case in short is that during the life time of her husband he purchased Insurance Bima Gold Policy and the petitioner was made nominee. Her husband paid all premium till his accidental death. After death petitioner claimed the benefits of the Bima Gold Policy with sum assured and other benefits. But the O.P. Insurance company denied on the ground that the policy lapsed as the premium not paid. Petitioner submits that the premium was paid till death of her husband. But due to deficiency of service of the O.P. Insurance Company she was deprived. So, she claimed compensation for Rs.4 lacs from the O.P. 

 

2. Opposite Parties Insurance company appeared, filed W/S denying the claim. The contention of the O.P. is that the last premium payable in the month of July was not paid by the husband of the petitioner. So, policy was lapsed. As the policy was lapsed, so petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit on the lapsed policy.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the petitioner and the O.Ps following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the Bima Gold policy purchased by the husband of the petitioner was lapsed? 

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the policy and any other amount as compensation for deficiency of service?

 

4. Petitioner produced FIR, charge sheet, death Certificate of Padma Kr. Debbarma, Money receipt, claim letter, status report of the policy, letters, premium receipts, which are exhibited and marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.

 

5. Petitioner also examined one witness i.e., the petitioner herself.

 

6. On the other hand the O.P. produced some documents which are exhibited on admission by the petitioner.

 

 7. After remand O.P. Insurance company produced some documents, proposal form, agent report, status report of policy, history of premium, termination certificate of agent, final report of the police and also statement on affidavit of one witness Mohammad Ali Choudhury.

 

8. On the basis of evidence we shall now determine the above points.

 

9. It is to be mentioned here that considering all the evidence, judgment was passed by this Forum. O.P. preferred appeal and the appellate court after appreciation of the evidence on record was pleased enough to set aside the judgment and remanded the case with direction to record the evidence and  mention correct policy number. After receipt of the case record we directed both the parties to produce the agent but the parties failed to produce the agent of the case. So on the basis of all the evidence as produced earlier we shall now decide the above points afresh in the light of judgment of Appellate Court. 

 

FINDINGS AND DECISION:

 

10. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record complaint petition and written statement it is now clear that there is no definite proof that premium was paid by agent namely Jari Debbarma. LICI also produced one certificate from the Manager who support that she was no longer agent and she was not authorized to collect any premium. Petitioner side also did not insist that Jari Debbarma deposited the amount  of last premium. 

 

11. We have gone through the proposal form and also the premium payment receipt. The timing of the premium receipt is very clear and it is computer generated.  Amount of Rs.1885/- was paid on 05.07.14 at 16:46. First premium paid on 10.01.13 and thereafter 5 premium paid by the deceased. Death certificate is produced and in the death certificate time is written. Time of death is written 3:15hrs. In the FIR the time of death is written 3:15hrs. Police investigation report also speaks that time of death is 3:15 hrs. Petitioner failed to produce any cogent evidence in the post mortem report to support that death occurred after the payment of the premium i.e., after 16:46 hrs. It is true that premium was accepted. But if the time of death is 3.15 hrs then it is accepted after death. Payment also made after death. There is no evidence to support that the deceased paid the amount before his death through any messenger or through the agent. So we can not take any presumption in this regard. Payment date was 10.01 as per terms of the policy the grace period of one month not less than 30 days allowed for yearly and quarterly premium and 15 days for monthly premium. The policy premium is to paid by April, 2014 and after grace period by May, 2014. But the life assured failed to pay the installment payable after 2014 so after 02 months of due date after 2014 policy was lapsed as per terms and conditions. However policy may be revived if it is paid within 5 years. For that formalities are to be followed. That formalities was not observed by the petitioner. 

 

12. Insurance Company referred the decision of the Supreme Court 2008 CKJ 213. In that judgment our Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a grace period of one month but not less than 30 days will be allowed. If the premium is not paid before the expiry of grace period then policy will be lapsed. Payment was not made within the grace period. The revival takes effect after the same is approved by the corporation and is specifically communicated to the life insured. In this case it was not done. 

 

13. So from the available evidence it is clear that the lapsed policy was not revived as per procedure. The premium received was refunded to the nominee of the deceased. Only after death of the life assured the premium was paid against the lapsed policy. So rightly O.P. Insurance company denied the claim. There was no deficiency of service by the O.P. but the nominee Golapi Debbarma is entitled to get other benefits of the policy, the amount paid as premium and bonus accrued on it as per terms of the policy. She is not entitled to get death benefit as claimed as because the premium was paid against the lapsed policy after death of the life assured. Accordingly the case is dismissed. 

 

 

    Announced.

 

 

 

 

SHRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, WEST TRIPURA. SHRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, WEST TRIPURA.