Punjab

StateCommission

A/2/2017

Ranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard LIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Sidhu

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.02 of 2017

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 04.01.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   10.03.2017

 

Ranjit Singh s/o Nachhatar Singh, resident of Phulluwala Dogra, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.

 

                                                                           Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Lodha        Excelus, 13th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound - N.M Joshi Marg,      Maha Laxmi, Mumbai 400 011 through its authorized person.

2.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Opposite    Bus Stand Bathinda through its Manager.

 

 

                                                              Respondents/Opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Mansa.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

         

Present:-

          For appellant                         : Sh.G.S. Sidhu, Advocate

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

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant has directed this appeal against order dated 18.11.2016 of District Forum Mansa, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The appellant is the complainant in the original complaint before District Forum and respondents of this appeal are OPs therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that his wife Simarjit Kaur obtained one life insurance policy from OP no.1 on 5.11.2013. She had paid two installments, vide chque dated 5.11.2013 of Rs.24,250/- and cheque dated 28.12.2014 of Rs.24,250/- from her bank account. Thereafter, OPs issued policy bearing no. 16403556, which was operative from 5.11.2013 to 5.11.2025. Unfortunately, Simarjit Kaur (wife of the complainant) expired on 07.12.2015. The complainant is nominee of his wife and is entitled to file the complaint. It was averred that complainant lodged claim with OPs on 22.12.2015, after death of his wife. The OPs assured to release the claim amount at the earliest. It was further averred that second installment was deposited on 28.12.2014 and the next installment was due on 28.12.2015 and complainant lodged claim on 22.12.2015, but OPs have repudiated the claim, vide letter dated 04.01.2016 on the ground that insured was to pay the installment of 05.12.2015, which was not paid and the policy stood lapsed. It was averred that repudiation of the claim by the OPs is illegal. It was further averred that second installment was paid on 28.12.2014 by his wife (since deceased). On the basis of right to enquiry, policy was not lapsed, as second installment was paid late. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  The complainant has, thus, filed complaint directing the OPs to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as insured amount, besides Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      OPs were set exparte before District Forum, vide order dated 12.04.2016.

4.      The complainant adduced exparte evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Mansa  dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of  order dated 18.11.2016. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Mansa dated 18.11.2016, the complainant now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for appellant on the point of admission stage of the appeal and have also gone through the record of the case.

6.      The OPs wrote letter Ex.C-2 to complainant dated 04.01.2006 regarding lapsation of the policy without any paid up values on the date of death of insured. Ex.C-3 is customer acknowledgement for payment of installment dated 22.12.2015. Ex.C-4 is letter addressed to the complainant, as LR of deceased dated 04.01.2016 that complainant could approach the Insurance Ombudsman against lapsation of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy are placed on the record in this case. Ex.C-5 is terms and conditions of the policy, which makes it clear that in the event of any premium due during the continuous period of three years from the commencement date of policy remained paid, the policy will alter to lapsed status  and no benefits would be payable thereunder. There is grace period for payment of premium of 15 days, as set out in clause 1(i) of the terms and conditions of the policy. The bone of contention in this case is that the second premium was due for repayment on 5.11.2014. No receipt regarding payment of second premium is produced on record. Even the grace period of 15 days expired on 20.11.2014 for payment of next premium in this case. Thereafter, the policy has attained the status of lapsed policy, as per mandate of Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the policy. The lock-in-period in this case is three years. As per clause 5 (i) of the terms and conditions of the policy, it is laid down that in the event of any premium due during the continuous period of three years from the commencement date of the policy remaining unpaid, the policy will be altered to lapsed status and no benefits would be payable thereunder. The policy commenced in this case on 05.11.2013. Apparently, the insured/complainant failed to pay the second premium even despite the passage of grace period provided in the contract of insurance and consequently policy stood lapsed in this case and no benefits thereunder could be released to the insured or any other beneficiaries. There is, thus, default on the part of the insured/beneficiary within lock-in-period of three years as even the grace period of 15 days already expired after 5.11.2014 with regard to payment of second premium. So in the circumstances of the case the payment of second premium after grace period is over would not revalidate the lapsed policy. We are strictly bound by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and have to decide the case in accordance therewith sensu stricto. Consequently, we find no ground to admit the appeal in this case. The appeal is dismissed in limine by affirming the order of the District Forum Mansa dated 18.11.2016.  

7.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit to admit the appeal and same is hereby dismissed in limine by affirming the order of District Forum Mansa dated 18.11.2016 under challenge in this appeal.

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

                                                                (SURINDER PAL KAUR )

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

March 10,  2017                                                                  

(ravi)