BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KAMRUP, GUWAHATI
C.C.No- 10/2013
Present:
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smt. Archana Deka Lahkar. - Member
3)Sri Jamatul Islam - Member
Md.Habibur Rahman -Petitioner
S/o –Late Fersat Hussain
Village- Hatimuria
P.O. & P.S.Morabari
Dist.Morigaon, Assam,
Pin-782126
-Vs-
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. - Opp. party
Represented by the Divisional Office.
Jeevan Prakash
S.S.Road, Fancy Bazar,
Ghty-781002
2. Branch Manager,
Morigaon Branch,Assam
Pin-782105
Appearance:
Ld.advocate for the complainant- Ms.Manju Sarma
Ld.advocate for the opp.parties -Sri Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma
Date of argument- 6.2.2018
Date of judgment- 20.2.2018
JUDGMENT
This is a case u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
1) This is a complaint filed by Md.Habibur Rahman against Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was admitted on 7.2.13 and notices were served on the opposite parties and the opp.party side filed written statement on 7.8.13 and thereafter the complainant filed evidence of Mr.Habibur Rahman, Md.Nazim Uddin Ali Ahmed and Ms. Sameena Yasmin and they were cross- examined by the opp.party No.1 and 2 side. Opp.Party No. 1 filed evidence of Sri Manna Bhattacharjee and she was cross- examined by the complainant side Ld.counsels. Thereafter, Ld advocate Ms.Manju Sarma filed written argument on behalf of the complainant and Ld.advocate Mr.Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma filed written argument for the opp.parties. We have heard oral argument on 6.2.18 of Ld. advocate Ms.Manju Sarma for the complainant and of Sri Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma for the opp.parties and today we deliver the judgment which is as below.
2) The gist of the complaint is that complainant’s wife Mrs.Gulesta Begum had done life insurance policy with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Morigaon branch, under Salary Savings Scheme bearing policy No. 484241901 on 3.5.2008 by remitting initial two premiums due for the month of May and June/08 amounting to Rs.2,928/- and date of commencement of policy was 7.5.2008 of which monthly premium was Rs.1,464/- and the third premium was due for the month of July,2008 and the said premium was to be deducted from his wife’s salary of the month of July,2008, but the salary of the month of July/08 was received in the month of Sep/08 after his wife’s death and as such the premium for the month of July/08 remain un-paid. After his wife’s death, the complainant submitted the claim before the branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Morigaon branch to settle the claim against her policy and he also visited the office several times, but his claim was not settled and then he issued a legal notice to the Branch Manager of Morigaon branch and the later replied to the legal notice vide letter dtd. 29.2.12. From the reply he learnt that the premium of the month of July/2008 was not remitted whereas the grace period for payment of the premium under Salary Savings Scheme is only 15 days. Keeping the policy in lapse condition she expired on 20.2.2008 and the said claim has not been proceeded on. Thereafter, he submitted representation before Divisional Office, Guwahati on 29.3.12 praying for settlement of his claim, but no reply received from him. It is found from the letter dtd. 29.2.12 sent by the branch manager , Morigaon branch that policy purchased by his wife is considered to have been lapsed due to non-payment of premium of month of July/08 within grace period of 15 days , but Salary Savings Scheme premium invoice for the month of July,2008 reveals that a premiums for july/08 have been quoted from salary of other teachers in the month of Sep/2008 as salary of July/ 2008 received only in the month of Sep/08 and the premiums of other teachers of the month of July/08 were deposited alongwith late fee, but name of his wife was struck off. In the case of Salary Savings Scheme, premiums are deducted only from salary and in case of the complainant’s wife in the month of July,2008 could not be deposited due to non-receipt of salary prior to her death, whereas premium for all other teachers for the month of July/08 have been deducted from the salary alongwith late fee in the month of Sep/08 and policies of other teachers are not deemed to have lapsed, but in the case of his wife it has been considered to have lapsed and her policy has lapsed not due to her negligence and as such the opp.party can not allowed to content that the claim of the complainant cannot be settled and they are liable to settle the claim as the claim filed by the complainant and to pay him the assured amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 21% from the date of complaint and also to pay him Rs.1,80,000/-.
3) The pleading of the opp.parties , in brief, is that there is no cause of action for filing the present complaint and the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint . The complaint filed is false , vexatious . The premium in respect of month of May and June of the wife of the complainant have been remitted as per necessary procedure and third premium i.e. the premium of the month of July/08 was due which was to be deposited from the salary in the month of July,2008. Actually in Salary Savings Scheme allotted to the wife of the complainant, the Center Secretary of the Borthol Doloigaon L.P.Centre collectively deposited the premium for the teachers and the salary for the month of July,2008 was received in the month of Sep/08 i.e. after death of complainant’s wife (10.8.2008), but the premium for the month of July/08 in respect of her remained unpaid. The complainant submitted a representation on 18.10.08 alongwith policy . But there was informed by them that he will not get any amount. As the said policy remain lapsed the complainant served a legal notice upon them the policy of the complainant’s wife mentioned on 7.5.2008 under T/T-14- 21- S.A., Rs.3,00,000/- premium Rs.1,464/- per month and premium for the month of May and June were collected at the time of completion of the proposal of the policy on 7.5.2008 and next premium was due on 7.7.08, but the life assured died on 10.8.08 and premium of the month of July remain unpaid and she died after lapse of 15 days of payment of unpaid premium and as such no paid up value acquired, neither claim concession nor ex-gratia is applicable and hence the complainant was informed by the Branch Manager vide letter dtd. 29.2.12 that the policy lapsed due to non-payment of premium within grace period and he is not entitled to get any amount from the said policy. It is true that the premium for the month of July/08 in respect of other premiums, other teachers were deposited by Center Secretary of Borthol Doloigaon,L.P.Centre on 26.9.08 strike out the name of the complainant’s wife and said premiums were accordingly paid by the opp.party. Lapsation occurred due to non-payment of premium by the complainant’s wife and there was no negligence on their part and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) We have perused the pleading of the parties as well as their evidence and found that both the parties admit that the wife of the complainant namely Lt. Gulista Begum, who was a Asstt.Teacher of R.B.M.P.School, Morigaon, had purchased a policy under Salary Savings Scheme bearing No. 484241909 on 3.5.2008 by remitting initial two premiums due for the month of May/08 and June/08 amounting to Rs.2928/- and date of commencement of the policy was 7.5.08, but the premium of month of July/08 was not paid and complainant’s wife died on 10.8.08 and for the default of payment of premium of July/08 the policy of the deceased lapsed both side admitted fact. It is also both side admitted fact that the premium of the policy done by the complainant’s wife and her colleagues were to be debited by the Center Secretary of Borthol Doloigaon,L.P.School from their pay and to deposit in the LIC office, (Morigaon branch) on monthly basis. It is also both sides’ admitted fact that the teachers of the said center had not been paid the salary of the month of July in due time by the school authority, but their salary were drawn in the month of Sep/2008 and the Center Secretary deposited the premium for the month of July in the LIC office in the month of September in respect of their co-teacher after paying due late fine, but the Center Secretary had not deposited the premium of the month of July/08 of the wife of the complainant.
5) Now, moot question is that on which defaulted the premium of month of July/08 in respect of the complainant’s wife was not deposited in the LIC office and where the opp.party is responsible for non-payment of said premium which is resulted in lapsing of the policy of the complainant’s wife / The plea of the complainant side is that the opp.party is responsible for non-payment of premium of the month of July/08 of the complainant’s wife, but the plea of the opp.party is that it is not their responsibility, it is the responsibility of the insured to deposit the premium of the policy and also to revive the policy and also to revive the policy by paying the defaulted premium alongwith fine and interest. We have perused the evidence and found no evidence to the effect that in the case of default of premium the opp.party has to inform the insured and asked the insured to pay the default premium or to revive the policy . In the Life Insurance Act and the rules framed under the act, there is no provision as to informing or calling the insured to pay the default premiums or to revive the lapse policy. We have also found no agreement between the opp.party and the Secretary of Borthol Doloigaon,L.P.Centre as to effect with the opp.party is the inform the insure or the secretary of the unit about the default premium and the lapse of policy and to request them to pay the defaulted premium or to revive the lapse policy. Thus, it is crystal clear that the opp.party side is not responsible for the default of payment of premium of the month of July/08 in respect of complainant’s wife policy and for lapse of her policy. Whatever we saw in the evidence , it transpires to us that the Centre Secretary has not taken any step in depositing the premium of the month of July ,2008 in respect of the complainant’s wife, while the salary of the month of July,2008 all the teachers of the said unit was paid, in the month of September/08 and he just struck off her name from the list of depositor of the premium. Thus, it is found that due to default on the part of unit secretary the premium of the month of July/08 in respect of the complainant’s wife was not deposited at all and in result the policy lapsed. It is also found that complainant’s wife during her life time did not take step directly to deposit the premium of the month of July /08 which she could have done. Although, she was alive in the month of July/08 and died August/08. As such , we are of opinion that for the default of the insured herself, the premium of July/08 was not paid and for her default the policy was not revived , although she was alive 9th August/08 resulting lapse of the policy. We also found that the circumstances of the present case, does not attract revival of the policy now. Therefore, we cannot make the opp.party responsible for lapse of the said policy and liable to pay the insured value to the complainant for the death of the insured(his wife). Summing up above discussion we hold that the complaint has no merit. Hence, the complaint against the opp.parties is dismissed on contest.
Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 20th Feb,2018.
Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.
(Smt .A.D.Lahkar) ( Sri Jamatul Islam ) (Md.S.Hussain) .
Member Member President
