Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has come up with this Complaint with her grievance that her son R.S.Navaneeth had taken golden jubilee policy Bheema Gold from the Opposite party with an assured sum of Rs.50,000/-. The policy commenced from 28.03.2006 with a quarterly premium of Rs.514/-. The insured suffered heart attack on 26.09.2006 and died on 31.10.2006. The insured died prior to the payment of next premium. That he had paid premium on 28.06.2006 and had obtained a policy. Dated 11.02.2007, 11.03.2007 and 27.03.2007 are the dates determined for payment of the premiums due, therefore the policy is not lapsed. When she approached the Opposite party for payment of the insured amount, the Opposite party refused to honour the claim, therefore has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to pay the policy amount with interest at 18% p.a. and damages of Rs.25,000/-.<br /> 2. The Opposite party has filed version admitting to had issued a policy with assured a sum of Rs.50,000/- and commencing of the policy on 28.03.2006, has further admitted that last premium was paid on 28.06.2006. It is further contended that the death of the insured was not known to them and they came to know the same through the legal notice dated 07.01.2008, which has been replied. As per the condition No.2 of the policy, a grace period of 30 days allowed for paying the quarterly premium from the due date, if the premium is not paid within the days or grace, the policy will lapse, therefore as per condition No.5 paid up amount to be forfeited. That the insured should have paid the premium due on 28.09.2006 on or before 28.10.2006, but he did not pay the premium, therefore on the death of the deceased i.e. on 31.10.2006, the policy had lapsed and nothing is payable to the complainant and therefore has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the complaint allegations, the complainant and one A.R.Mahesh for the Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced the policy, copy of legal notice she got issued to the Opposite party, reply of the Opposite party and a letter of the Opposite party addressed to the deceased prior to his death. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Opposite party proves that the policy issued in favour of the deceased R.S.Navaneeth had lapsed by the time of his death and therefore it is not liable to pay any money to the complainant.<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for??<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 and 2:- As there is no dispute between the parties with regard to issue of a policy in favour of deceased R.S.Navaneeth for a sum assured Rs.50,000/- on his life and that the deceased had paid the last premium on 28.06.2006. After the inception of the policy on 28.03.2006 with quarterly premium, the next premium became due on 28.06.2006. Admittedly, the deceased had paid the second premium on 28.06.2006. The third premium became due on 28.09.2006, this premium though was payable on 28.09.2006, but because of grace period of 30 days given for payment under condition No.2 of the policy, the third premium became payable on or before 28.10.2006. Admittedly, this premium was not paid by the insured. Unfortunately, the insured suffered a heart attack on 29.06.2006 according to the complainant and died on 31.10.2006, therefore when the third premium which was payable on or before 28.10.2006 was not paid the policy lapsed on that day. Therefore, it is evident that the policy lapsed during the life time of the insured. As such we find no merit in the contention of the complainant that policy had not lapsed.<br /> 7. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant inviting our attention to a letter of the Opposite party dated Nil, argued that the Opposite party themselves have informed the deceased R.S.Navaneeth to pay the outstanding premiums on or before 11.02.2007 with interest at Rs.13.70, 11.03.2007 with interest at 17.20 and on or before 27.03.2007 with interest at 20.60. Whereas the counsel appearing for the Opposite party argued that this letter was sent to the insured thinking that insured was alive, giving an option to him to pay the third premium, which has due with interest for revival of policy and argued that since the insured himself was dead as on the date of sending of that letter, the question of revival of the policy do not arise and therefore submitted that the complainant cannot take advantage of this letter. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Opposite party, because as contended by him, this letter was addressed to the insured with an impression that insured was still alive. This letter do not bear the date inception, but on seeing the date of the postal seal, it refers to the date as 02.01.2007. Therefore, this letter was addressed during 2007 was with a belief that the insured was alive with an option to him to get the lapsed policy revived by paying premium with interest. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the Opposite party since the insured himself had died by that time the question of reviving the policy do not arise. Therefore, on considering the facts of this case and documents placed before us, we are of the view that the policy relied upon by the complainant since had lapsed by the time deceased died, the complainant who is his heir and also nominee is not entitled to any money. In this regard, we rely upon the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court made in a decision reported in I (2008) CPJ Page 81 and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. With the result, we answer points no.1 and 2 in the negative and pass the following order. <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br />