Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/163/2012

Asha W/o Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishan Lal S/o Shamsher Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Sangwan

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 163 of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 15.02.2012 

                                                                                          Date of decision: 17.03.2017

 

Asha, aged about 34 years, widow of L. Shri Sunil Kumar, resident of 837, Vishwakarma mohalla, near city centre, Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Krishan Lal son of Shri Shamsher Singh, resident of Bita PS Saha, District Ambala.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of Inida, Branch Office SCO 184-185, Sector-17 HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                      ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. SS Saini, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

ORDER  (Ashok Kumar Garg, President)

 

1                        The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that husband of the complainant Late Shri Sunil Kumar obtained an Insurance policy on 24.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.2 lacs vide policy bearing No.177348595 dated 24.12.2010 from the OP No.2 Insurance company i.e. through OP No.1 who is agent of OP No.2 and paid first half yearly premium of Rs.4453/- against the policy in question. After that again, OP No.1 came to the house of the complainant on 16.07.2011 for collection of second half year premium of policy which was duly paid to him by the complainant but the OP No.1 (Agent) while committing breach of trust did not deposited the same with the OP No.2 Insurance Company and also not informed to the husband of the complainant. Unfortunately, on 04.08.2011, the husband of the complainant expired and a claim was lodged by the complainant being nominee, but the same was rejected by the OP Insurance company vide letter dated 28.09.2011 with the excuse that the policy has been lapsed due to non payment of second half yearly installment. After that, complainant informed the OP No.2 that on 16.07.2011 second installment was paid by her husband to the OP No.1 but the OP No.2 Insurance Company totally refused to listen the genuine request of the complainant. In this way, the OP No.1 in connivance with the OP No.2 insurance company has committed the fraud with the complainant as well as other innocent persons. After that complainant moved an application to the police station on 24.10.2011 in which the police had conducted the investigation and the OP No.1 admitted that he took the second installment premium from the husband of the complainant but due to some problem he could not deposit the same with the OP No.2 and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to pay the insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against answering OP No.1; complainant has no cause of action against the OP No.1; complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act; there is no relationship of the consumer and supplier  between the complainant and OP and on merit it has been admitted that the deceased Sunil Kumar had taken a Life Insurance Policy through OP No.1 and paid first installment through the answering OP who issued a receipt to the said Sunil Kumar. It has been further mentioned that OP No.1 informed to the deceased that he was resident of Yamuna Nagar and he could deposit the remaining installments as per conditions of the policy in the Branches at Yamuna Nagar and Jagadhri and after that deceased Sunil Kumar never contacted with the OP No.1. The answering OP No.1 never received any amount for paying the premium as alleged by the complainant in her complaint. the entire story stated by the complainant is concocted one and there is no even an iota of truth in the version of the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.1.

4.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 Life Insurance Company; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; the deceased life assured had taken one Insurance Policy bearing No.177348595 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the OP corporation commencing from 24.10.2010 for a period of 20 years under the term and table 179-20-20 with half yearly mode of payment of premium. the life assured has deposited the first premium only 24.12.2010 and as per the status report, the policy was lying lapsed as on June, 2011 i.e. the date on which the next premium was to be paid. In this case, the OP No.2 Insurance company received an intimation regarding death of deceased life assured upon which claim of the complainant was duly processed and it was found that on the date of death i.e. 04.08.2011, the policy was lying lapsed and nothing was payable as per terms and conditions of the policy under the policy in question. So, the OP No.2 vide its letter dated 29.09.2011, accordingly informed to the complainant in this regard and on merit contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objection.

5.                     Replication to the reply filed by the OP No.2 has also been filed by the complainant controverting the facts mentioned in the reply of the OP No.2 and reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint.

6.                     In support of his case learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and affidavit of Shri Randhir Chaudhary neighbourer of the complainant is Annexure CW/B and photocopy of DDR No.78-SP dated 24.10.2011 as Annexure C-1, photocopy of invisible statements recorded by the police as Annexure C-2 to C-7 and photocopy of complaint made to the SSP, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure C-8, photocopy of Insurance policy in question as Annexure C-9, photocopy of death certificate as Annexure C-10, photocopy of first premium receipt as Annexure C-11, photocopy of ration card as Annexure C-12, photocopy of account ledger inquiry as Annexure C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

7.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure RW/B and certified copy of order dated 16.07.2015 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure R-1, certified copy of statement recorded in complaint case as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

8.                     Learned counsel for the OP No.2 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri PK Saxena, Manager Legal , LIC as Annexure RW2/A, attested copy of Insurance policy along with terms and condition as Annexure R-2/1, status report of policy in question as Annexure R-2/2, photocopy of death certificate as Annexure R-2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

9.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

10.                   The only version of the complaint is that her husband Shri Sunil Kumar obtained an Insurance Policy bearing No.177348595 on 24.12.2010 for a sum insured of Rs.2,00,000/- and paid first half yearly installment of Rs.4453/- to the OP No.1 Agent on the same day and after that husband of the complainant also paid second half yearly installment on 16.07.2011 after 6 months to the OP No.1 (Agent) but the OP No.1 agent did not deposit the same with the OP No.2 Insurance Company due to which the claim lodged by the complainant on account of death of her husband, who expired on 04.08.2011, was rejected by the OP No.2 Insurance Company on the ground that policy was in lapsed condition due to which, complainant has suffered financial loss. It is further, the case of the complainant that OP No.1, who is agent of the OP No.2, committed the fraud with the complainant by not depositing the second half yearly installment with the OP No.2 for which she lodged the complaint (Annexure C-1 & C-8) with the police. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the OP No.2 Insurance Company as the OP No.2 Insurance company is a fully responsible for the act and conduct or fraud committed by its agent and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
11.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that complainant Smt. Asha has given her affidavit (Annexure RW/B) in which under Para No.3, she has mentioned that she will not claim any compensation from Krishan Lal Agent of the LIC in same complaint and will be bound to withdraw against the Krishan Lal and will claim only for compensation from LIC Department. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further draw our attention towards certified copy of order passed by Shri Sumit Garg, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar on 16.07.2015 (Annexure R-1) and also towards the certified copy of statement for withdrawl of the complaint (Annexure R-2) and argued that complainant qua the OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed according to affidavit of the complainant herself.

12.                   Learned counsel for the for OP No.2 argued at length that claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated/rejected by the OP No.2 Insurance company as the policy in question was lying in lapsed mode since June, 2011. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further argued that deceased Sunil Kumar paid only first half year installment on 24.12.2010 at the time of taking Insurance policy and after that he failed to deposit second half yearly installment which was due on 24.06.2011 and even the deceased/insured Sunil Kumar failed to deposit second half yearly installment within a grace period. Hence, the policy in question was lying in lapsed mode since June, 2011 whereas the deceased Shri Sunil Kumar died on 04.08.2011 and accordingly as per terms and condition of the Insurance policy, nothing was payable under the policy in question. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 referred the case law titled as “Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Mani Ram, 2005(2) CPC, Page 422 which is given below as under :-

Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 12 and 23 – Insurance policy Payment of premium w.e.f. from 21.08.1995 when first premium was paid- As per terms of policy its was effective from 28.04.1995- Insured died in an accident on 02.08.1996.- Father of insured filed a claim as nominee of deceased- Claim was resisted on the ground that premisum falling due on 28.04.1996 was not paid within time including moth of grace ending on 28.05.1996- Complaint was allowed by District Forum and upheld by State Commission and also by National Commission- Order of authorities below not legally sustainable- Since the second premium which was due on 28.04.1996 and was not paid within due date or within one month of grace period the policy had lapsed as per conditions of policy – Insurance corporation rightly negatived the claim of complainant- Ratio laid down in LIC of India Vs. Dharam Vir Anand, 1999 (1) CPC 10 (SC) supports the case of insurance Corporation rather than that of the complainant. Impugned orders set aside.

 

            and also further referred the law titled as “ Harshad J. Shah Versus LIC of India”, AIR 1997, SC 2459 which is given below as under:

Life Insurance Corporation Act (31 of 1956), S.48(2) (CC)- Life Insurance Corporation (Agents) Rules (1981), R-8, Agent Collection of premium- Rule, prohibiting agents from collecting premium on behalf of LIC- In view of such express prohibition, an implied authority by LIC authorizing its agents to collect premium on behalf of LIC cannot be inferred- Agent obtained bearer cheque of premium amount from insured – After encashing same depositing it with LIC- Issuance of receipt by LIC- Not sufficient to say that LIC induced the insured to believe that agent was authorized by LIC to receive premium on behalf of LIC- Doctorine of apparent authority underlyings S.237 Contract Act cannot be invoked in view of express provisions under Rules.

Contract Act (9 of 1872) S.237.

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 12, Part III- Life Insurance Corporation- Rules framed by it whereby agents have been prohibited from collecting moneys on behalf of LIC- Making such provision to protect its interest and disclaiming its liability while acting in * From judgment and order of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. Nos. 280 and 323 of 1992, D/-26.07.1994. DO/FO/S435/97/ VNP/VNP/CSL accordance with said provision- It cannot be said that LIC has not acted fairly or in consonance with its obligations under Part III of constitution. Life Insurance Corporation Act, (31 of 1956), S. 48(2) (CC). Life Insurance Corporation (Agents) Rules (1981), R.8.

 

                        and requested for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.2.

 

13.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2 Insurance Company as in the instant case, it cannot be said that OP No.1 had express authority to receive the premium on behalf of LIC nor can it be said that the OP No.1 had an implied authority to collect the premium on behalf of LIC because in 1972 the LIC has made a regulation [Regulation 8(4)] which in 1981 became a rule, prohibiting the agents from collecting premium on behalf of the LIC. This shows that collection of premium was not necessary for or ordinarily incidental to the effective execution of his express authority by an agent. In view of this express prohibition in the Regulations/ Rules which were published in the Gazette it is not possible to infer an implied authority by the LIC authorizing its agents to collect premium on behalf of the LIC.

14.                   In the present case, complainant has totally failed to place on file any authority letter or any letter issued by the LIC in favour of the OP No.1 authorizing him to collect the premium on behalf of the LIC from the complainant or other customers. The facts of the case law referred by the OP No.2 titled as “Harshad J. Shah Versus LIC of India”, AIR 1997, SC 2459 (Supra) are fully applicable to the fact of the present case as the policy in question was lying in lapse mode at the time of death of the insured. Hence, we are of the considered view that, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated/rejected by the OP No.2 Insurance Company.

15.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, the complaint of the complainant has no merit and the same is hereby “dismissed” with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 17.03.2017.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER