Haryana

Karnal

438/2013

Babli Rani W/o Ram Parshad - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Of India ., 2 Haryana Government Press - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K. Bhargava

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.438 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt. 28.10.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 10.08.2015

 

Babli Rani wife of late Shri Ram Parshad son of Shri Man Singh, resident of village Daha, post

 

office Madhuban District Karnal.

                                                             ……….Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

1.LIC of India, through its Senior Branch Manager, 489,Model Town, Karnal.

 

2.Haryana Government Press, through Assistant Controller, Shiv Colony, Kaithal Road, Karnal.

 

                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma ………Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma……….Member.

 

Present:        Sh.S.K.Bhargava Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rahul Bali  Advocate for OP no.1.

                   None for OP no.2.

ORDER:

 

                       

                        The facts giving rise to the present  complaint, in brief, are that husband of the complainant was employed with the Opposite Party ( in short OP) no.2 and posted as  Inker  and he had taken policy bearing No.174414202 under salary saving scheme.  The premium of the policy was deducted from his salary by the OP no.2 and remitted to OP No.1. He died natural death on 21.9.2010. After his death, the complainant being nominee/legal heir  lodged claim with the OP no.1, who instead of releasing the amount of policy i.e. Rs.1,05,000/- repudiated the claim, vide letter dated 20.4.2013, on flimsy grounds that policy was lying in lapsed condition.  It has further been averred that Ram  Parshad the  husband of the complainant, was having two other policies bearing No. 172423282 and 174411339  under salary saving scheme and premiums of the same were also deducted from his salary and claims in respect of those policies were settled by the OP no.1.   The conduct of OP no.1 repudiating the claim of the complainant  under the policy in question  amounted  deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, on account of which she has suffered mental, pain, agony and harassment.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops.  The OP No.1 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting claim of the complainant.  Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no loucs standi  and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts.

 

                    On merits, it has been admitted that policy No. 174414202 was issued to Ram Parshad under salary saving scheme for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-  and the date of commencement of the said policy was 28.11.2008. Premium of Rs.470/- per month was deducted from his  salary and remitted to OP no.1. Premiums for the period  of  28.01.2009 to 28.07.2009 were not deducted from the salary of Ram Parshad as per record and thus there were  seven gaps and as such policy was in lapsed condition on the date of death of deceased life assured  and for that  reason claim could not be paid. Thus, there was no defficiency in services on the part of OPno.1. It has further been  admitted that claims under two other policies of the deceased life assured were settled. It has been denied that deceased life assured  died a natural death, rather it has been submitted that deceased life assured had cancer of liver. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

 

3.                 The OP no.2 filed its separate written statement. Objections have been raised that complainant has got no locus standi and no cause of action and that complaint is not maintainable against the OP no.2 as the complainant is not consumer of OP no.2.

 

                    On merits, it has been submitted that dispute, if any,  is between complainant and OP no.1. OP no.2 never provided any  kind of service to the complainant. It has further been averred  that Ram Parshad handed over a copy of letter dated  10.01.2009 issued by OP no.1, in the office of OP no.2 in August, 2009 and after  receiving  the said letter, OP no.,2 started deducting the amount of Rs.470/- per month as LIC premium from his salary and deposited the same  in Treasury,  which was transferred to the account of OP no.2.  The said deduction was made from August, 2009 to August, 2010.

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant, she filed her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to  Ex.C12.

 

5.                On the other hand in evidence of OP no.1, affidavit of Shri Ajay Gupta Manager Legal, Ex.O1/A and documents Ex.O1/B to Ex.O1/E have been produced.

 

6.                In evidence of OP no.2, affidavit of Shri Virender Kumar Chhabra, Assistant Controller, Haryana Government Press Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R15 have been filed.

 

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

8.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that deceased life assured (Ram Parshad) obtained one policy bearing No. 174414202 from OP no.1 under salary saving scheme for an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- and monthly premium of Rs.470/- was to be deducted from his salary by OP no.2 and remitted to OP no.1. It is also admitted fact that complainant is the nominee/legal heir of Ram Parshad, who died on 21.9.2010. OP no.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that premium for the period 28.1.2009 to 28.7.2009  was not deducted from the salary of deceased life assured  and as such there was gap of seven premiums, due  to which , the policy was in lapsed condition at the time of death of deceased life assured.

 

9.                A perusal of Ex.R2 to Ex.R15 makes it quite evident that  premiums from the month of August, 2009 to August, 2010 were deducted from the salary of the deceased life assured and same were remitted to OP no.1. However, OP no.1 has issued  the details regarding premiums, copy of which is Ex.C12, according to which the premiums were not paid since February, 2010.

 

10.               It is worth pointing out at the very out set  that  OP no.2 did not send any notice to deceased life assured or OP no.2 regarding non deposit of premiums for the period  of January, 2009 to  July, 2009, rather continued to receive  the premiums remitted by OP no.2, after deducting the amounts from the salary of deceased life assured, for the period of  August, 2009 to August, 2010 without any objection. Had the policy lapsed after gap of seven premiums, there could be no question of accepting the premiums thereafter by the OP no.1. Acceptance of premiums by OP no.1 after July, 2009 amounted to estopple  against  it and ,therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of OP no.1 to say  after the death of deceased life assured  that policy was in lapsed condition because of nonpayment of premiums for the period of  January, 2009 to July, 2009.

 

11.               The learned counsel for the OP no.1 has laid stress on the contention that premiums were accepted by Op no.1 from August, 2009  by adjusting the gap period from January, 2009 to July, 2009 and  for that reason in Ex.C12 it was mentioned that premiums were not paid since February, 2010. He further contended that as per  terms of the policy, premiums were  to be deducted from the salary of deceased life assured

 every month by OP no.2 and remitted to OP no.1 accordingly and as such there was no need of giving any separate  intimation to deceased life assured or OP no.2 regarding nonpayment of premiums.  In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the law laid down in case  Branch Manager, LIC of India and others Versus  Shri Ranganth, in revision petition No.4159 of 2012 (NCDRC).

 

12.               There is no dispute regarding proposition of law laid down in the aforecited  authority but the same does not cut any ice  in favour of OP no.1 because facts  of the cited case were on different footings  from the facts of the present case.  In the cited case in the policy itself,  it was mentioned that premium was payable in  March, June, September and December.  In those circumstances, it was held  that no separate intimation for payment of premium was required.  In the instant case, premiums were to be deducted by the OP no.2 from the salary of deceased life assured and  then to be  remitted to OP no.1 every month.  If the premiums were not received by OP no.1 w.e.f. January, 2009 till July, 2009, intimation must have been sent to the deceased life assured or  the OP no.2 as to why premiums were not being paid but no such intimation was sent.  While accepting the premium for the month August, 2009 it could be clarified that amounts of premiums deducted from that period would be adjusted in the gap period of January, 2009 to July, 2009. Had such fact been intimated to OP no.2 or deceased life assured, then the deceased life assured might have deposited the amount of gap period or the total amount could be deducted from his salary by the OP no.2 for remitting the same to the OP no.1. Complainant cannot be made to suffer for fault on the part of the Op no.1 Moreover, after the death of deceased life assured, the plea that amount deposited after August, 2009 to August, 2010 was adjusted in the premiums of gap period of January, 2009 to July, 2009 and that premiums for the period   February, 2010 to August, 2010 remained unpaid, cannot be raised by the OP no.1. Even otherwise, the argument raised by learned counsel for OP no.1 in this regard is beyond pleadings, therefore, not tenable. Under such circumstances, repudiation of claim of the complainant certainly amounted to deficiency in services on the part of OP No.1.

 

13.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to make the payment of sum insured to the complainant in respect of insurance policy bearing No. 174414202 together with all admissible benefits thereto, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 28.10.2013 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by her together with a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. The OP no.1 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:10.08.2015                                                                      

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)(Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.

 

 

Present:        Sh.S.K.Bhargava Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rahul Bali  Advocate for OP no.1.

                   None for OP no.2.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 10.8.2015.

 

Announced
dated:06.08.2015                                                                      

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)(Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.

 

 

Present:        Sh.S.K.Bhargava Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rahul Bali  Advocate for OP no.1.

                   None for OP no.2.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted.  The parties concerned be communicated of the  order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance..

 

Announced
dated:10.08.2015                                                                      

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)(Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.