Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 349.
Instituted on : 01.08.2018.
Decided on : 05.03.2019.
1. Sheela Devi, age 50 years wife of Late Shri Dilbag,
2. Sunil, age 32 years, daughter of Late Shri Dilbag,
3. Anil, age 30 years, son of Sh. Dilbag, all residents of village Kharawar, Panna Jatan, near Railway Station, District Rohtak.
………..Complainants.
Vs.
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Unit-311, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendera Place, New Delhi-110015 through its Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Sr. Divisional manager, Office at SCO-3-4-5, Sector-1, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ramesh Beniwal, Legal Aid Counsel for the
complainant.
Sh. S.P. Gulati, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the son of complainant No. 1 namely Hans Raj and brother of the complainant No. 2 and 3 had obtained one LIC policy from OPs bearing No.114073843 sum assured therein Rs.50,000/- date of commencement of the said policy is 28.03.2005. That the son of the complainant No. 1 i.e. Hans Raj has died as civil death as per judgment and decree dated 10.07.2017 passed in civil suit No. 1241/2016 titled as Smt. Sheela Devi versus General Public etc. by the court of Sh. Harish Goyal, Learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Rohtak. That complainants being only nominees of Late Hansraj, submitted their claim with the opposite parties for said policy on account of death of said Hans Raj as father of Hansraj has already died, and also submitted the original policy and other all required documents. That the complainants visited to the office of the OPs many times to get the genuine claim amount and also made written correspondence with the OPs, but every time the official of Ops kept them in abeyance and till date has not disbursed the claim amount to the complainant and unnecessary harassed them. That the act of opposite parties of not paying the alleged death claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay the sum assured under the said policy amounting Rs.50,000/-alongwith all other benefits alongwith interest, Rs.40,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in its reply submitted that as the last quarterly premium received under the policy is 03.2010 and policy is lying in lapsed condition w.e.f. 28.06.2010. It is further submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get the sum assured with other benefits of policy as alleged. In this case, the policy was issued on 28.03.2005 and last premium received for due 28.03.2010. The life assured Hans Raj was missing since 23.11.2006 and declaration regarding the civil death of Hans Raj declared vide judgment dated 10.07.2017. The policy was lapsed condition on the date of decree, even on the date of filling the suit for declaration i.e. 27.05.2016 due to non-payment of further premiums. So only paid up was payable as per terms and conditions of the policy and the same has been paid to nominee on 01.05.2018. It is further submitted that the said policy was lying in lapse condition at the time of death claim settlement hence paid up value has been paid for Rs.11,363/- on 01.05.2018 through NEFT and the amount has been credited in the account of nominee. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and has closed his evidence on dated 17.12.2018. Ld. counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on 22.01.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the complainant herself, the date of commencement of policy is 28.03.2005 and the same was assured for Rs.50000/-. In the present complaint Mr.Hans Raj s/o Sh. Dilbag Singh is LA and the present complaint was filed by his LRs. As per the complaint Mr. Hans Raj L.A. was missing since 23.11.2006. A declaration suit was filed by the complainant before the Civil Court to declare the LA as a case of civil death and same was decided vide order dated 10.07.2017 and after receiving that order, the complainant moved an application before the respondent officials to pay the sum assured i.e. Rs.50000/- after considering that Life Assured Hans Raj is not alive. The application is Ex.C1 and the receipt is Ex.C2. The complainant also placed on record Ex.C3, the judgment of Hon’ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak dated 10.07.2017. The complainant also placed on record the policy receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C9 alongwith other documents. After receiving the above mentioned documents the respondent officials paid an amount of Rs.11363/- to the complainant on dated 01.05.2018 through NEFT. Through this complaint, the complainant demanded sum assured Rs.50000/- alongwith interest. It is pertinent to mention here that the last premium regarding the policy no.114073843 was due on dated 28.03.2010. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the LA had to pay the premium with the respondent officials quarterly. The main contention of the complainant is that the LA Hans raj was missing since 23.11.2010. They moved before the Civil Court regarding the declaration of the civil death of Mr. Hans Raj on dated 30.05.2016. Meaning thereby, on dated 30.05.2016 the policy was in lapse period. Ld. counsel for the respondent has placed on record CA No.2655/99 a judgment dated 26.03.2004 of Apex Court LIC Vs. Anuradha and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that : “We cannot, therefore, countenance the view taken by the High Court in either of the two appeals that on the expiry of seven years by the time the issue came to be raised in Consumer Forum or Civil Court and evidence has adduced that the person was not heard of for a period of seven years by the wife and/or family members of the person then not only the death could be presumed but it could also be assumed that the presumed death had synchronized with the date when he was reported to be missing or that the date and time of death could be correlated to the point of time coinciding with the commencement of calculation of seven years backwards from the date of initiation of legal proceedings. ‘In order to successfully maintain the claim for benefit under the insurance policies it is necessary for the policy to have been kept alive by the punctual payment of premiums until the claim was made. The appellant-LIC was justified in turning down the claims by pleading that the policies had lapsed and all that could be paid to the claimants was the paid-up value of the policies”.
6. After considering the above noted case law of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we came to the conclusion that the complainants have not kept alive the policy till the claim was made. In the present case the policy had already been lapsed and the respondents have already paid the paid-up value of Rs.11363/- on 01.05.2018 through NEFT and the amount has been credited in the account of nominee. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
