Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/672/2014

Radha Bulani w/o Lat. Jaikishan Bulani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Ins. Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Kapil Totla

03 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 672/2014

 

Radha Bulani w/o Late Jaikishan Bulani r/o Plot No. 238, Shivam Appartment, Chitrkoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

Life Insurance Corporation of India,Br.Office 3^rd floor, Jeevan Prakash Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur through Br.Manager & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 3.11.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Kapil Totla counsel for the appellant

Mr.R.K.Soni counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2

Mr.Anil Sharma counsel for respondent no.3

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23.4.2014 of the District Consumer Forum, Jaipur 4^th Jaipur by which the complaint was dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that her complaint has been dismissed without any reason. Her husband has filled the acceptance form on 14.3.2010 and on the same day the cheque for premium has been issued and thereafter he has been medically examined. The cheque has been realized on 27.3.2010 but the policy has commence on 23.3.2010.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that appellant's husband was hospitalized since 22.3.2010 hence, there was no occasion for him to fill the proposal form or to get himself medically examined and the court below has rightly dismissed her claim.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he has paid the premium in time by cheque and when the cheque is accepted the insurance starts on the moment and the reliance has been placed

3

 

on 2013 NCJ 15 (NC) Branch Manager (Legal) Vs. C.P.Sinha. Further reliance has been placed on 2008 (1) CCC 137 (Karnataka ) Yellamma Vs. Bhy Sukhadev Singh & anr. where it has been held that liability of insurance policy commences from the date of issuance of cheque and not from the date of its encashment and he has drawn the attention towards the receipt which shows commencement of the policy on 23.3.2010 and admittedly the husband of the complainant expired on 25.3.2010. Hence her claim could not be repudiated.

 

The respondent has relied upon II (2015) CPJ 544 (NC) Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Saroj Kumari where also it has been held that when premium has been paid the policy commenced. Further reliance has been placed on IV (2014) CPJ 597 (NC) Post Master General Rajasthan, Vs. Satyanarayan.

 

There is no dispute about the legal preposition that on aceptance of the cheque the policy commenced. Here also in the present case the receipt issued by the respondents speaks that policy commenced from 23.3.2010 but the court below has scanned other circumstances of the case.

 

4

 

It is admitted that husband of the appellant was hospitalized since 22.3.2010. Hence, there was no occasion for him to fill the proposal form and to utter surprise of this court he has been medically examined on 23.3.2010. The contention of the appellant is that he is not at fault but it goes without saying that the appellant is the ultimate beneficiary and he was in connivance of the employees of the LIC and this false policy has been created after accident of the husband of the appellant and the court below has rightly rejected the claim. No interference is needed. The appeal is dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm