Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 116.
Instituted on : 16.02.2017.
Decided on : 10.09.2018.
Jag Mohan s/o Sh. Lachman Singh R/o H.No.524 Chuna Bhathi Wali Gali, Jeetu Wala Johd near Vikas High School, Bhiwani.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Opposite Radio Station, Subhash Road, Rothak through its Branch Manager, Rothak.
- Regional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sector-1, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Harsh Bhargava, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Satish Khera, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that brother of complainant had obtained a policy from the opposite party vide policy cover note No.179915505 for a sum of Rs.300000/-. That complainant was nominee in the alleged policy. That the brother of the complainant had expired on 23.04.2016. That complainant filed a claim with the opposite parties but the same has been illegally refused by the OPs. That the act of opposite parties of rejecting the lawful claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay the assured amount of Rs.300000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed their reply submitting therein that the opposite parties issued a policy on the life of Jagram son of Sh. Lachman Singh with date of commencement 28.01.2015 of sum assured Rs.300000/-. That the policy was in lapsed condition at the time of LA’s death. Policy has run only one year. That no intimation regarding death of LA was given by the claimant and no relevant documents have been submitted by claimant. Last premium was paid on 02.12.2015 and at the time of death of LA i.e. 23.04.2016, the policy was in lapsed condition. Hence nothing is payable in the above policy as per terms and conditions of the said policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the date of commencement of policy is 28.01.2015 and the date of death of L.A. is 23.04.2016. Last premium was paid on 02.12.2015. The premium was not even paid within the grace period and admittedly the L.A. died on 23.04.2016 and at the time of death of LA on 23.04.2016, the policy was in lapsed condition. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2018)CPJ482(NC) titled as Ranjit Singh Vs.HDFC Standard Life Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “The annual premium was not paid on or before due date. Premium was not paid even within 15 days grace period-Policy lapsed on 20.11.2015-Insured admittedly died on 07.12.2015, after insurance policy had expired-Repudiation justified”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that OPs have rightly repudiated the claim and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
7. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.09.2018. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
