BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BISHNUPUR,CHURACHANDPUR,TAMENGLONG,NONEY AND PHERZAWL
Consumer Complaint Case No. 3 of 2018.
Yenshembam (o) Usharani Devi aged about 53
Years, w/o late Y.Nobo Singh of Kakwa Sorokhaibam Leikai,P.O. Imphal ,P.Singjamei Imphal West District.
….Complainant
….Versus….
Life Insurance Corporation of India,Churachandpur Branch,represented by its Branch Manager,P.O. and P.S. Churachandpur,Churachandpur District.
…..Respondent
PRESENT :-
S. Sadhana Devi Member
S.Devananda Singh Member
Counsel for the Complainant:- L. Somorendro
Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent:- S.Yaima Singh
Advocate
Date of Hearing:- 16/12/2020 and 23/12/2020
Date of Order:- 15/01/2021
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER.
1. This is to dispose of the Consumer Complaint Case No.3 of 2018 filed by the Complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondent/Op for Defiency of Service on the part of the respondent.
2. That, the brief facts leading to this Case is that the Complainant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Shri Yenshembam Nobo Singh who was a policy holder of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Churachandpur Branch.
3. That, the husband of the Complainant namely Shri Yenshembam Nobo Singh was a policy holder of the Life Insurance Corporation Of India under Churachandpur Branch, Manipur being Policy No.492981060. He joined the LIC at Churachanpu Branch on 28/07/2014 as approached by an LIC Agent namely L. Satyabati Devi being Code No.2474/496 Imphal Branch. The sum assured plan payterm for the said policy was Rs.2,00,000/-(two lakhs) only. During huis lifetime,he was serving as Laboratory Assistant/Khalasi in Loktak Development Authority, Manipur.
4. That from the that of joining i.e. 28/07/2014 the monthly premium amount of Rs.1,215/- were paid in case through his LIC Agent for the month of July and August, 2014. Thereafter, the monthly premium of the subsequent two months i.e. September and October, 2014 were supposed to be deducted from his salary through proper channel for deduction under salary saving scheme (SSS) as agreed between employer of the deceased policy holder and the concerned Department of the Corporation by authorizing in respect of the policy. However the subsequent month of the September and October, 2014 were not deducted from his salary but from the month of November, 2014 the monthly premium amount of Rs.1,215/- were deducted regularly till the month of December, 2015 from his salary. Unfortunately, on 14/01/2016 the policy holder (husband of the Complainant ) expired due to stroke/cardiac arrest.
5. That, after her husband’s death and as per the insurance plan, the complainant being a wife as nominee/claimant had claimed the assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-( Rupees two lakhs) only by giving proper information regarding the claim in the Branch Office. Moreover, on 26/04/2016, the L.I.C. Agent namely L.Satyabati Devi had submitted a Confidential report by mentioning the details of the deceased husband’s date of death, place of death, cause of death, circumstances and other relevant information to the L.I.C. Divisional Office, Silchar Division. Therafter, on 27/09/2018, the complainant received a letter dated 25/07/2018 through speed post sent by the Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Churachandpur Branch Office stated that she had no right to claim the assured amount as the policy lapsed due to non-remittance of premium of the dues of 09/2014 and 10/2014.
6. That, being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the decision of the Branch Manager, L.I.C. of Churachandpur Branch of Manipur, the complainant consulted with an advocate and had sent a legal notice dated 09/10/2018. A copy of the aforesaid legal notice was also furnished to the Branch Manager, Silchar Divisional Office, L.I.C. of India Meherpur P.B. No.54, Silchar, Assam. However, there were no replies from the Branch Offices.
Hence, the present consumer complaint case.
7. That, in support of her case, the complainant had filed 10(ten) documents. On being summoned, the O.P. also present before this Commission by filing Vakalatnama and filed their written statement.
8. That, according to the respondent, the policy holder (l) Y. Nobo Singh did not pay the month of September and October, 2014, the status of the policy stands lapsed as on the date of death of the life as per rule and regulation of the Corporation. The respondent further stated that the respondent has no responsibility for non-deduction of the said premium as the payment of premium is a legal obligation therefore the contention of the complainant is devoid of merit and non-maintanable. The respondent did not filed any documents.
9. That, on the basis of the above pleading, the following issues were framed :
ISSUES
i. Whether the complainant is a legal heir of the Late Y. Nobo Singh
who was a policy holder under Salary saving Scheme(SSS) of the Life Insuranc Corporation of India(LICI) Churachandpur Branch during his lifetime of his service or not ?
ii. Whether the complainant’s husband, during his service period the required Insurance premium regularly and punctually in terms of the policy rules till his death on 14/01/2016 or not ?
iii. Whether there was any lapsed or failed to make in the payment of the monthly premium of the policy during his lifetime or not ?
If so, the respondent has got any area/room of the recovery of the defaulted amount through his monthly salay account, since the insured was an employee or not ?
iv. Whether the complainant, the wife of the insured Late Y. Nobo Singh is entitiled to the Insurance claimed or not ?
v. Whether the complainant is entitiled to the relief claimed or not ?
10. That, for the issue No.i, it has been confirmed from the documents mark Ext. A/5, Mark X/2, Mark X/5 and from the version of P.W. No.2 Laiphrakpam Satyabati Devi. The respondent never denied this point. So, this issue is decided in favour of the complainant.
For issue No. ii, we will presume that the complainant’s husband, during his service period paid the required Insurance monthly premium regularly and punctually in terms of the Policy Rules till his death, he was not responsible for the lapsed of the two months premium i.e., September and October, 2014. It was the duty of the corporation to deduct the monthly premium amount from his salary as per the rules and agreement. So, this issue is decided in favour of the complaint.
For issue No. iii, It has been already discussed in issue No. ii, as the policy holder had already died, ther is no area/room for the respondent to recover as the dfaulted amount through his monthly salary account. So, this issue naturally goes in favour of the complainant.
For issue No. iv and v, the complainant, wife of the insured Late Y.Nobo Singh is entitiled to the insurance claimed as well as the relief claimed.
11. That, the regarding this case, the complainant produced two witnesses and the respondent also produced two witnesses and crossed by both the counsel.
12. That, the counsel for the complainant argued that the insured amount of the policy holder late Y.Nobo Singh from the above discussion is entitled to the complainant.In favour of her claim, the complainant cited two Supreme Court rulings. In Meenakshi Popat Kumbhoje& Ors. Vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India the Apex Court clearly mentioned that under the Salary Saving Scheme(SSS) of the L.I.C is bound to inform the employee on prescribed forms No.5227 and 5228 in case of non-payment of premium for any reason as laid down in the manual. Ld .Counsel for the complainant strike the point. Besides no such information was received from the side of the respondent. We have gone through the statements of the D.W.No. 1 and 2. We never found that the respondent informed the complainant Late Y.Nobo Singh during his lifetime about the lapsed two months premium. It is also clearly mentioned in para No.18 of the above mentioned ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in similar cases under the Salary Saving Scheme(SSS) that it was the responsibility of the employer to deduct and pay the premium and ther is absolutely no fault of the complainant, if the premium was not paid in time.
13. That, the Insurance Corporation of India, Ramagundam Branch, Ramagundam PO & Mandal Karimnagar rep. by its Manager vs Goguloth Jyoti @ Laxmi w/o. late Gagulath Desai, R/o. H.No. 11-3-408, Rajeevnagar, ramagundam Po & Mandal, Karimnagar District, The Apex Court held in para No. 14 that it is evident that there are gaps in payment of premia but not as though that the policy premia was not received continuously. And the gap premia pertaints to the period 01/2004,02/2004 and 08/2004. In spite of gaps for such period, the appellant Corporation had received the subsequent premium without raising any objection and therby submitted to continuation of the policy. Those aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court submitted by the complainant’s counsel is very much apposite to this present case.
14. That, in respect of this case the respondent did not submit any Judgement in support of his case. The respondent contested that case by filling written statement wherin admitting holding the policy by the life assured under Salary Saving Scheme(SSS). The O. P. pleaded and argued only on two main points that the policy stood lapsed due to non-payment of premium of two months i.e., September and October, 2014 and another point is the complainant failed to make the employer as one of the party to the proceedings. But, the fact of Non-Joiner and Mis-Joiner was not mentioned in his written statement and the respondent never raised any objection. In Insurance Corporation of India , Ramagundam Branch, Ramagundam PO & Mandal Karimnagar rep. by its Manager vs Goguloth Jyoti @ Laxmi ,w/o Late Gugulath Desai, r/o.H.No,11/03/408, Rajeevnagar, Ramagundam PO & Mandal.,Karimnagar District, the Apex Court held in para No. 17 admittedly, in the case on hand, employer was not made as party and the appellant never raised any objection for the same, may be under the impression that employer is its agent. No information is sought for by the Appellant from the employer as to what prevented the employer from not remitting the insurance premium for the gap period as stated above and also from 08/2005 onwards. We may state that for the fault of the employer, employee should not suffer. Equally the insurance company cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that it has informed and reminded the employer to send the premium amounts. However, the Appellant neither addressed any letters nor informed the deceased life assured that the policy stood lapsed. In the circumstances, we hold that employer and the appellant are equally liable to pay the benefits that were accrued under the policies. In the circumstances, we are the opinion that the District Commission has rightly came to the conclusion which we have excerpted above. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
15. In view of the totality of the above facts and circumstances and evidence of this case and the ratio of the judgements referred to hereinabove, we have been compelled to held that the respondent is liable to pay for the act of deficiency of the service and the complainant is entitiled to get a sum of Rs.2,00,000(Rupees two lakhs) only towards sum assured under policy No. 492981060 after deducting the unpaid premiums of two months i.e. , September and October , 2014. The complainant is also entitiled to get Rs. 2,00,000(Rupees two lakhs) only for the value of loss of time and mental harassment etc. The net amount carries @12% per annum from the date of filling this complaint till realization and a sum of Rs. 20,000(Rupees twenty thousand) only as cost of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Announced in a open Court.
