IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> <br /> CC 314/09 DATED 22.10.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri R. Srinivasa Rao S/o late Ramakrishnaiah, R/at No.1368/2, Narayanashastri Road, Shivarampet, Mysore-1.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. S. Sampath Kumar, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Branch Manager, LIC of India, Mysore Branch-1, K.R.S. Road, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri Pandey B.S.N Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 21.08.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 11.09.2009<br /> Date of order : 22.10.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 11 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party seeking a direction to refund the entire premium amount paid towards the policy No: 720440342 with interest and other costs.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint amongst other facts it is alleged that the complainant subscribed to the Insurance policy of the opposite party on 27.07.1995. As on the date of taking policy complainant had attained age of 55 years. After subscribing to the policy complainant went on paying premium amount. However, after payment of sum premium it was realized impossibility of taking the matured amount from the opposite party during his life time. Hence, he stopped payment of premium amount. Immediately he requested to the opposite party to refund the premium amount, as the policy was void, ab-intio. The opposite party has refused to refund the amount. Than the complainant got issued notice on 24.06.2009. Untenable reply was sent. The withholding of premium amount by the opposite party is against the law laid down by our Hon’ble High court in the ruling reported in KCCR 2007(2) 845. On these grounds it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the written statement the opposite party has contend that the complaint is time barred by efflux of time, it has been filed after lapse of nearly 13 years. Further amongst other facts it is contend that the opposite party received only 1 ¾ years premium. Also it is contend that the complainant was not diligent keeping the policy in force by regular payment of the premium. He allowed the policy to lapse with effect from 28.12.1996. The premium already paid is forfeited. As per the rules and procedure, the opposite party has destroyed the file of the policy. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of their respective contentions the complainant and the opposite party have filed their affidavits and certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments of both the learned advocate and perused the material on record.<br /> <br /> 5. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the relief claimed?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Admittedly the complainant had taken policy from the opposite party on 27.07.1995. In the year 2009 present complaint has been filed. It is nearly after about 14 years. Further the opposite party has contended the complaint is filed nearly after 13 years from the date of lapse of the policy. These aspects cannot be brushed aside.<br /> <br /> 8. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that after taking the policy he went on paying the premium amount. Up to what date he went on paying the premium is not stated. It may be to misguide the Forum so as to make believe that the complaint is in time. The opposite party has specifically contend that the complainant paid premium only for 1 ¾ years. Also specifically the opposite party has contend that the policy lapsed with effect from 28.12.1996. Hence, when the policy has been lapsed nearly more than 13 years back, filing of the present complaint by the complainant before this Forum is prima-facie time barred.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant further has alleged that on 24.06.2009 he issued notice to the opposite party and an untenable reply was sent. The fact that the complainant issued notice to the opposite party nearly after about 12 or 13 years, will not give cause of action for the complainant to file the present complaint. Because much prior to date of issuance of the notice the claim of the complainant was time barred.<br /> <br /> 10. Learned advocate for the complainant relied on ruling reported in I (2000) CPJ 252. The Hon’ble Assam State Consumer Forum has held, in case of lapse of policy on the ground of default in payment of premium the company is not liable to pay the policy amount. However, it is held that the company is liable to pay last premium paid. Firstly, in that case there was no question of limitation as in the case on hand. Even, otherwise recently the Hon’ble National Forum in Revision Petition No.31/2004 by the order dated 03.08.2003 as held that after the policy lapsed and no provision of terms of policy of law, could any for a direct for refund of any premium for the simple reason, that the risk stood covered for the period of which the premium was paid. The insurer cannot ask to refund the premium when he had covered the risk. Considering this order of the National Commission, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to the amount claimed.<br /> <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the complainant relied on the ruling reported in 2007(2) KCCR 845. Our Hon’ble High Court in this ruling has held that condition imposed by the Insurance Company, while assuring the life of the policy holders to forfeit the amount if the amount/premium is not paid for full three years, held, will be detrimental to the interest of the common man and it will be in clear violation of Articles 21, 38 and 39 of the Constitution. Such practice being adopted by the Corporation will be amassing the wealth of the public and thereby resulting in concentration of wealth, does not legitimately entitle them to retain the amount/premium paid by the policy holders whose policies have lapsed when due to the financial hardship they could not get their policy revived. In that case the Insurance Company insisted the petitioner to pay the premium with the interest and also to undergo medical test on the ground that the amount was not paid before the due date. It is observed by the Hon’ble High Court that contingency to undergo medical test arises only when there is a lapse in not paying the premium regularly and the same may be considered as reasonable condition so long as it not come in the way of the petitioner right to continue their policy and so also when it has not been indicated by the Insurance Company with their policy cannot be revived after the further medical test. But in the case on hand considering the material on record nearly 13 years back the policy has been lapsed and hence, under the circumstances there is no question at all of reviving it. Also in that case the Hon’ble High Court had no occasion to consider the question of limitation as on the case on hand.<br /> <br /> 12. For the reasons noted above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly we answer the point No.1 in Negative. <br /> <br /> 13. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to costs. <br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to the party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 22nd October 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V. Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar. J)<br /> Member<br /> <br />