Delhi

New Delhi

CC/837/2013

Vinod Ghai - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/837/13                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Vinod Ghai,

S/o Sh.K.L ghai,

R/o C-174, G1, Ground Floor,

Ramprastha, Ghaziabad

 

……..COMPLAINANTS

       

VERSUS

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,

        124, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Place,

        Delhi-110001

 

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India,

        Through its Manager,

        Laxmi Insurance Building,

        Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110001

 

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

Member: Ritu Garodia

 

        The complainant took a LIC policy of his minor daughter. The policy was named Jeevan Tarang. It provided that if child was below 12 years of age, or under it, the policy was to commence on the policy anniversary coinciding with or immediately following 7 years or after 2years, if later. The complainant mentioned date of commencement of policy at 24.09.13.  The complainant paid the premiums in 2011 and 2012. Due to sudden illness, complainant’s daughter expired on 19.08.13. OP repudiated the claim and refunded the total amount of premium i.e. Rs.2,03,166/-.  The complainant alleged that he was advised by agent of OP the policy called Jeevan Tarang and on getting the policy came to know that policy had to commence on 24.09.13. He contacted the agent Mr. Adlakha, who told that it was not wrong. But he will get higher interest for 3 years. He thus paid the policy for 2011 and 2012 also. The complainant alleges that agents of OP did not disclose these conditions. In support of his case he has relied on following observations in two cases by him:

 

1. R.P no.4389 of 2008 of NCDRC titled Sunil Jain Vs. LIC of India & Anr.

 

“It was the incumbent on the part of the LIC or its agents to have explained all the clauses of the policy to the consumer/deponent before colleting the premium and issue of cover note. The LIC has a scheme of giving awards and rewards to Crorepatis, meaning thereby the agents who collect premium in crores are recognized and awarded. Apart from this, the agents get a percentage of the premium collected as their commission. Therefore to make a quick buck, the agents try to collect as much premium as possible, in their hurry to earn maximum income. They show scant regard to protect the interest of the consumer.”

 

2. Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S Modern Insulators Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 22.02.2000

 

“It is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the lads which the parties known. The insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the insurance company and its agents to disclose .ill material facts in their knowledge since obligation of good faith applies to both equally.”

               

        The complainant also alleges that policy conditions were not explained to him. This complaint is filed praying for remaining claim amount.

        OP in its W.S has explained that date of commencement of risk is 24.09.13 and date of death of minor is 19.08.13. The premium was refunded and claim was repudiated on the grounds of non commencement of risk.

        We have gone through the pleadings in detail and given thoughtful consideration to arguments made by both parties. The aforesaid two decisions do not help the complainant, since it is admitted fact by him that he was told by Mr. Adlakha, on enquiries after receipt of policy by him that date of commencement as 24.09.13 was correct. Thus he cannot blame agents.

        The OP cannot be asked to violate the terms of the contract printed on the policy.

        The policy was issued on 24.09.10 and date of death of minor was 19.08.13. This is an admitted position by both parties. Scrutiny of said policy reveals that date of commencement of policy to be 24.09.10 and date of commencement of risk to be 24.09.13. The Clause (4) of policy clearly specifies that date of commencement of risk if the child is less than 7 year as being on policy anniversary coinciding or immediately following after completion of 7 years.

        In this case, the child was 4 years 7 months at time of taking the policy. She completed 7 years of age on 30.01.13. As policy anniversary did not coincide with her date of birth, the risk of commenced on policy anniversary i.e. 24.09.13.

        Unfortunately, the minor expired on 19.08.13 before the period of risk commencement. The complainant has contended that he was unaware of policy conditions. Assuming the complainant was clearly explained and was informed in details about the policy conditions he may or may not have purchased the policy. However, LIC by refunding the premium amount put him in the same position as he was at the time of taking the policy and there is no loss or gain.

        Thus, there is no force in the allegations regarding the policy conditions and the complaint is hereby dismissed as there is no deficiency in service.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

Pronounced in open Court on 28.05.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER