DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 342 of 04.12.2007<br /> Decided on : 13-03-2008 <br /> <br /> Nanki Devi aged about 32 years W/o Late Roodha Ram, R/o Shashtri Market, Near Chhajju Wala Gurdwara, Mohalla Bann Wattan, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bibiwala Chowk, Jeewan Jyoti Building, Branch Office, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda. (Punjab).<br /> ...Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh.Jagjit Singh Virk, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Roodha Ram was the husband of the complainant. He had purchased one Insurance Policy under Table No. 75-20 on 24.8.04. Insurance Policy No. 300328208 was issued in his name. Sum got assured was Rs. 50,000/-. Quarterly installment premium was Rs. 874/-. Complainant is the nominee of the assured. Policy was obtained through agent No. 02690174. Installments of Rs. 874/-, 874/-, 875/- and 874/- were deposited in 8/2004, 11/2004, 2/2005 and 5/2005 respectively. Next installment due was in August, 2005. It could not be deposited as assured was sick and had got medical treatment from several hospitals. He could not recover and ultimately expired on 10.10.05. After his death, complainant in the capacity of his nominee, approached the officials of opposite party with request to pay her the assured amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Assurance was given that amount would be paid. They continued putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. Assured amount has not been paid. In these circumstances, she alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay her the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest; Rs.30,000/- for mental tension and harassment besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; she has not come with clean hands; complaint is pre-mature; it is barred by limitation; it is not properly verified; it is false and frivolous and complainant is not consumer. On merits, they admit that policy was purchased by the husband of the complainant. He did not pay installments of premium as per instructions. Premium due on 24.8.05 was not paid. Policy has lapsed as per its terms and conditions. No claim is payable under this lapsed policy. Life assured had died on 10.10.05. This complaint has been filed in December, 2007 after the expiry of the period of limitation. When the installment of premium was deposited in the month of 5/2005, it was clearly intimated on the receipt itself that the next premium was due and payable in August, 2005 which has not been deposited by the deceased life assured. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence photocopy of Death Certificate of Roodh Ram (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Insurance Policy (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-3), photocopy of affidavit of the complainant (Ex. C-4), photocopies of receipts of Insurance premiums (Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-7), another affidavit of complainant (Ex C-8) and photocopy of receipt of Insurance premium (Ex. C-9).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite party affidavit of Sh. J P Arya, Manager (Legal & HPF), copy of status report (Ex. R-2), copy of detail of amount (Ex. R-3) and Performa of terms and conditions of the policy have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite party.<br /> 6. Fact that the husband of the complaint had obtained insurance policy from the opposite party is not in issue. Ex. C-2 is the copy of the Insurance policy which reveals that sum insured is Rs. 50,000/-. Complainant is the nominee. Roodha Ram, husband of the complainant has expired on 10.10.05 and copy of his Death Certificate is Ex. C-1. Date of commencement of policy is 24.8.04. Complainant reiterates her version in her affidavit Ex. C-8. She has also brought on record copies of the premium payment receipts Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-7 and Ex. C-9.<br /> 7. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that since the husband of the complainant was seriously ill and has expired on 10.10.05, installment of premium due in 8/2005 could not be deposited. He further argued that complainant had made request through letter copy of which is Ex. -3 for claiming the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Alongwith application affidavit was also submitted. Despite this, amount has not been paid and that even paid up value of the insurance policy with bonus has not been released. For this, he drew our attention to the authority Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chandigarh Vs. Dr. Ramesh Jain 1999 JRC 44.<br /> 8. Mr. Inderjit Singh learned counsel for the opposite party argued that policy has lapsed for non-payment of the insurance premium in 8/2005 i.e. within two years from the date of commencement of policy and as such, complainant being nominee of deceased is not entitled to the assured amount or the paid up value.<br /> 9. After considering the respective arguments, we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite party. Affidavit of the complainant stands rebutted with the affidavit Ex. R-1 of sh. J P Arya, Manager (Legal & HPF). As per status report, copy of which is Ex. R-2 policy has lapsed. Ex. R-4 is the copy of the terms and condition of the policy. Both the insurer and the insured are bound by them. Admittedly, in this case premiums were payable in quarterly installments. Installment payable in August, 2005 has not been paid. A grace period of one month but not less than 30 days has been allowed for payment of , yearly, half yearly or quarterly premiums and 15 days for monthly premiums. If death occurs within this period and before the payment of the premium then due, the policy will be valid and the sum assured paid after the deduction of the premium as also unpaid the premium/s falling due before the next anniversary of policy. If the premium is not paid before the expiry of the days of grace, policy lapses. In the case in hand, the assured was alive. Despite this, he did not deposit the insurance premium even within the grace period of 30 days. He expired on 10.10.05. As per condition No. 2 of the insurance policy, policy has lapsed. Clause no. 4 of the policy pertains to Non-forfeiture Regulations. According to it, if after at least three full years premiums have been paid in respect of the policy and any subsequent premium is not duly paid, this policy shall not be wholly void but shall subsist as a paid up policy for a reduced sum payable on the date of maturity or at the Life Assured's prior death provided the paid up sum assured is not less than Rs. <br /> <br /> 250/-. As mentioned above, insurance premiums have not been paid for a period of full three years. Policy had commenced on 24.8.08 and assured committed default in the payment of premium in August, 2005. It being, being nominee of the deceased assured is not entitled even to paid up value of the insurance policy with bonus. In this view of the matter, reference can be made to the authority Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Tripathi2001(1) CLT 51. <br /> 10. With respect to the authority relied upon by the complainant, it is distinguishable on facts.<br /> 11. Complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as well. Life assured has died on 10.10.05 whereas this complaint was filed on 4.12.07. Cause of action for filing the complaint accrued to the complainant on 10.10.05. Complaint could be filed within two years from 10.10.05 onwards. This complaint filed on 4.12.07 is hopelessly barred by time. For this, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the authorities M/s. Raja Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others 2002(2) CLT 408 and Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 2003(1) CLT 337. Similar view has been held in the authorities J K Vyas Vs. Indian Airlines Limited and another 2003(1) CLT 477 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Budh Ram and another 2006(3) CLT 436.<br /> 12. As a result of our foregoing discussion, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is proved. Complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 13-03-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />