Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/269/2013

Geeta Devi W/o Vikram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Arya

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA  NAGAR.

 

                                                               Complaint No. 269 of 2013.

                                                               Date of institution: 09.04.2013.

                                                               Date of decision: 05.09.2017.

 

 

1. Geeta Devi widow of Shri Vikram Singh,

 

2. Smt. Om Wati wife of Shri Mahi Pal,

 

3. Veer minor age 1 years son of Late Shri Vikram Singh,

 

4. Jiya minor age 4 years daughter of Late Shri Vikram Singh through their mother as natural guardian and next friend.

 

                                                                                                                     …Complainants.

                                  Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office Karnal and Branch office at Yamuna Nagar through its authorized Manager.

 

       

                     …. Respondent.

                   

BEFORE    SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

Present:       Sh. Rohit Arya, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                   Sh. Nirmal Singh Sinhmar, Advocate, counsel for OP.

 

ORDER     (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date.(hereinafter  the respondent shall be referred as OP).  

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainants, are that late Shri Vikram Singh had obtained a LIC Policy No.177458544 from the OP in his life time for a sum of Rs.2 lacs and was paying the premium whenever he used to visit the place as all the times he was posted in border areas and he could not avail the leaves easily as per Army rules and norms. The deceased had not been able to avail any leave since June, 2012 till date of death. Vikram Singh had to deposit Rs.5358/- as six monthly premium towards his policy. The deceased remained posted in border area and due to some disease expired on 14.11.2012 at Command Hospital and after his death, the complainant no.1 being his wife nominee informed and approached the OP for payment of his policy No.177458544. The complainant no.1 is regularly visiting the office of OP but they are not paying any heed to the rightful claim of the complainants and are making vague excuses without any logical reason. They are asserting that the fourth due premium of policy was due in July, 2012 and as the deceased has not deposited the same so the policy amount cannot be paid. The complainant informed that being in Army the movement of the deceased was restricted due to unavailability of leave from June, 2012 to his date of death, the delay is not intentional. It is pertinent to mention here that the LIC provided 6 months time to deposit the premium with interest if the customer failed to deposit the same in time. In this way the deceased Vikram could deposit the premium upto 28^th day of January, 2013. Lastly complainant have prayed for directing the OP to pay the amount of the insurance policy along with interest and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP without any cause of action; complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant; complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and on merit it is stated that Shri Vikram Singh was working in the Indian Army as per EDMS image of proposal form and Smt. Geeta wife of Shri Vikram Singh is nominee under the policy. It is admitted to the extent that the policy bearing No.177458544 was issued to Shri Vikram Singh for SA of Rs.2 lac with date of commencement 28.01.2011. T & T 149-72-21 installment premium of Rs.5358/- half yearly was to be paid by Shri Vikram Singh. It is pertinent to mention that as per status report and premium history, the premium has been received upto 28.01.2012 and next due date for paying the premium was 28.07.2012. The complainant has neither intimated the OP about the alleged occurrence/death nor has submitted any claim papers qua the death claim under the policy as per the record of OP. The complainant has made a concocted story having not an iota of truth. The premium under any policy may be paid by any relative of family member of the life assured and that too anywhere in India. There is no provision or terms or condition as per which premium can be paid up to 6 months or LIC can provide a period of six months. The LIC only provide a period of 30 days or one month to deposit the premium which is called the grace period but Shri Vikram Singh has not deposited the premium even upto grace period, which was upto 28.08.2012 to keep the policy in force. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP.

4.                In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt. Geeta Devi as Annexure CA  and document as Annexure C1 to C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Balihar Singh, Manager as Annexure RW1 /A and documents as R1 to R3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and has gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that Late Vikram Singh had obtained a Life Insurance Policy No.177458544 for a sum assured of Rs.2 lac with date of commencement as 28.01.2011 and half yearly premium of Rs.5358/-. The premium under the policy was paid upto 28.01.2012 and next due date for depositing the premium was 28.07.2012 which could not be paid as the complainant was in Army and his movement was restricted due to unavailability of leave from June, 2012 to date of his death. As such, this delay was not intentional. Moreover, the complaints had never received any demand notice of the due premium. Hence, prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.                Learned counsel for the OP argued that the policy bearing No.177458544 was issued to Shri Vikram Singh for SA of Rs.2 lac with date of commencement as 28.01.2011, T & T 149-72-21, installment premium of Rs.5358/- half yearly was to be paid by Shri Vikram Singh. As per status report and premium history, the premium has been received upto 28.01.2012 and next due date for paying the premium was 28.07.2012 which could be paid upto 28.08.2012 i.e. upto grace period, but neither Vikram Singh nor his any relative or friend had deposited the premium as per terms and conditions of the policy and due to non payment of the premium, the policy has lapsed and the complainants have no right to claim any amount on the basis of lapsed policy. Moreover, OP is not legally bound to send premium notice to anybody. The counsel for the OP referred the case law titled as “Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mani Ram, reported in CPJ 2005 (3), P-31 SC wherein it has been held that: -

Insurance (Life) : Lapse of Policy: Non Payment of premium: insurance company not liable- Terms and conditions of policy- Payment of premium to be made within grace period of one month-  Policy would lapse in case of non compliance- Premium not paid within grace period- Insurnace Cmpany wholly justified in rejecting claim of the complainant – No exception can be taken against such decision- Fora below committed error of law in allowing claim of respondent- Order liable to be set aside- Appeal allowed. 

Learned counsel for the OP also referred the case law titled as “The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Sri Ranganath, 2014(2) CLT 338, NC wherein it has been held that :-

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) Insurance claim (life) Repudiation- Premium not paid even within grace period of 30 days, policy lapsed- Contention of complainant that no separate intimation regarding payment of premium and grace period was given which amounted deficiency on the part of the petitioner – Held- As in the policy cover itself it has been mentioned that premium was payable in March; June, September and December and in such circumstances, no separate intimation for payment of premium was required –Revision petition allowed.

  

The counsel for the OP has also relied upon the case law titled as “ Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Smt. Rukmani Devi decided on 24.01.2011 in Revision Petition No.358 of 2007 (NC), Branch Manager LIC and others Vs. Shri Ranganath, RP No. 4158 of 2012 decided on 11.03.2014, another case titled as “ LIC of India and 2 Ors Vs. Neelamma, RP No.3438 of 2012 decided on 02.08.2013, wherein the same question of law was discussed for non depositing the premium. 

9.                In view of the above arguments the foremost question which arises before us for consideration is whether the complainant is entitle for claim amount or not?

          At the very outset it is admitted that the complainant’s husband had purchased one Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.2 lac and the half yearly premium to the tune of Rs.5358/- was to be paid in January and July as shown in the policy. Insured died on 14.11.2012. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that premium due on 28.07.2012 was not paid upto grace period i.e. 28.08.2012 and as such the policy in question was lying lapsed.  The version of the complainant for non depositing the premium is that the insured was working in Army and posted in Border Area and he was not able to avail any leave since June, 2012 till date of death. The other version of the complainant is that the LIC provided six month time to deposit the premium with interest if the customer failed to deposit the same in time.

10.              On the other hand the version of the OP is that as per terms and condition of the policy at Sr. No.2 and 3, the LIC provide only one month grace period for depositing the premium but the complainant had failed to deposit the premium within a grace period and as such the policy was lying in lapsed mode. As per condition No.3 of the policy, if the insured deposit at least three full years premium then the insured is entitled for the refund of the paid up value otherwise the insured is not entitled for any amount.

          We have gone through the terms and conditions of the policy at Sr. No.2 and 3 which is reproduced as under:

2. Payment of Premium: - A grace period of one month but not less than 30 days will be allowed for payment of yearly, half yearly or quarterly premiums and 15 days for monthly premium. If death occurs within this period and before the payment of the premium than due, the policy will still be valid and the sum assured paid after deduction of the said premium as also unpaid premiums falling due before the next anniversary of the policy, if the premium is not paid before the expiry of the days of grace, the policy lapses.

                   If the policy has not lapsed and the claim is admitted in case of death under a policy where the mode of payment of premium is other than yearly, unpaid premiums, if any falling due before the next policy anniversary shall be deducted from the claim amount.

 

3. Non Forfeiture Regulations :         If after at least 3 full years premiums have been paid in respect of this policy, any subsequent premium be not duly paid, this policy shall not be wholly valid, but the sum assured by it shall be reduced to such a sum (paid up value) as shall bear the same ratio to the full sum assured as the number of premiums actually paid shall bear to the total number originally stipulated for in the policy provided such reduced sum be not less than Rs.250/- . The policy so reduced shall thereafter be free from all liability for payment of the within mentioned premium. On policy becoming paid up the special provision will cease to apply.

 

11.              From the above condition No.2, it is abundantly clear that payment of due premium had to be made within a grace period of one month, if such payment was not made within the said period, the policy would be treated as lapsed. In the present case, admittedly the life insured had not deposited the premium upto 28.08.2012. Hence, the policy was lying in lapsed mode and further as per condition no.3, the Life Insured is bound to make the payment of installments for at least three years to get refunded his paid up value. But in the present case, the complainant paid only three half yearly premiums to the OP insurance company and as such the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the paid up value as per policy.

12.              In view of the above discussion as well case law referred above, we are of the considered view that the policy in question had lapsed before the death of insured, as such no claim was payable under the policy and the OP company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainants. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.                

Dated: 05.09.2017        

                                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

 

 (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                       (S.C.SHARMA)

  MEMBER                                                        MEMBER