Gurpreet Singh and Kulwinder Singh complainants have filed

the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which they have prayed that the opposite parties be directed to release the Insurance claim of their mother amounting to Rs.90,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of due till its actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainants in brief is that mother of the complainants namely Smt.Sawaran Kaur had taken insurance policy from the opposite party no.1 bearing No.473413035 dated 20.9.2012 for Rs.90,000/- and during her life she deposited all the installments of the said policy with the opposite party no.1. She died on 1.11.2014 and they informed the opposite parties regarding her death and also completed all the formalities for obtaining the insured amount. They many times requested the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of their mother but all in vain. Ultimately they have filed Consumer complaint against the opposite parties before this Ld.Forum bearing complaint No.258 of 1.7.2015 titled as “Gurpreet Singh and anther Vs. LIC and others”. This complaint was disposed off. In compliance of the order passed by this Ld.Forum, complainant Gurpreet Singh has moved an application dated 28.1.2016 before the opposite party no.1 for furnishing the policy documents. They had annexed the requisite documents with the said application and submitted before the opposite party no.1 for necessary action. But acting arbitrarily, the opposite parties have issued the impugned letter dated 23.3.2016 to them and alleged in the same that their policy was lapsed condition and thus repudiated their claim. The alleged letter dated 23.2.2016 whereby the opposite parties have passed the impugned order that their policy lapsed and their claim is repudiated is altogether wrong, illegal and against the natural justice. Infact they are entitled for the claim. Hence this complaint.  

3.       Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply through their counsel taking the preliminary objections that Smt.Swaran Kaur wife of Sh.Gurbachan Singh purchased a policy bearing No.473413035 for a sum assured of Rs.90,000/- with the half yearly mode of premium with the date of Commencement 28.09.2012 from the Branch Office-1, Batala. As per the record of the Corporation, the premium was due on 28.03.2014 and the policy holder has expired on 01.11.2014 as per the complaint. So the policy has became lapsed and nothing is payable. The complainant is not entitled for the assured amount as at the date of death of the deceased life assured; the policy was in lapsed condition. As such, no claim is payable as the policy was not in force on the date of death. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only.  On merits, it was submitted that the complainant had filed consumer complaint against the opposite parties titled as Gurpreet Singh Vs. LIC etc, in which the Hon’ble Forum has given the directions to the complainant to lodge their claim with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Corporation was also directed to settle the claim within 45 days from the receipt of the claim alongwith the required documents. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Forum, Corporation has settled the claim of the complainant under the terms and condition of the policy. Under the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party has rightly rejected the claim of the complainant and duly informed the complainant regarding the grounds of repudiation of the claim vide letter dated 23.02.2016. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Complainant Gurpreet Singh tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Kumar Manager Legal Ex.OP1 alongwith other document Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have thoroughly examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for their respective contestants. We find that the present dispute has arisen on account of the impugned ‘repudiation’ (Ex.C3) of 23.02.2016 of the insurance-claim (by the opposite party insurers, hereinafter for short ‘the OP’) as filed by the present nominee complainant pertaining to the ‘death-claim’ of his (demised) mother Smt. Swaran Kaur, the DLA (deceased life assured). We observe that the one and the only prime legal and appropriately sufficient logic supporting the ‘impugned’ repudiation of the 'death claim' has been the ‘lapsed’ state status of the related insurance policy as on the ‘date of death’ of the DLA; who had somehow demised on 01.11.2014 whereas ‘2’ nos of unpaid premiums (as having fallen due on 28.03.2014 & 28.09.2014) had already caused ‘lapse’ of her life policy. Thus, going by the policy ‘terms’ and the evidence as available on the record proceedings, the OP insurers have rightfully reached the present repudiation.

7.       However, the learned counsel for the present complainants (at the fag-end of ‘arguments’) pleaded ‘non-compliance’ of the statutory provisions of section 50 of the Insurance Act. 1938 claiming that the OP insurers failed to serve the mandatory notice of options to the assured on the lapsing of policy in question and as such his client(s) have been entitled to ‘death’ benefits of the related policy. We have examined the related statutory provisions and are of the considered opinion that the complainants after having throughout pleaded an ‘up-to-date’ payment of policy premiums (by the DLA during her lifetime) but having failed to prove the same shall be estopped to take the present defense of ‘non-compliance’ of section 50 of the insurance Act; and, at that too at this belated stage of the proceedings when it deprives the OP insurers of their legal-right opportunity to rebut the same.

8.       We find that the OP insurers here have rightfully repudiated the present claim in accordance with the extant terms of the related ‘policy’ and that too at the face of the failure of the complainant to prove an up-to-date payment of policy premiums as alleged in the complaint. To remove all ambiguity, it may be clarified here that ‘fresh’ pleadings are not open at all stages of suit proceedings to benefit one’s unilateral convenience at the cost of rebuttal opportunity of other that shall otherwise be an integral ‘legal right’ in every ‘judicial’ trial. 

9.       In the matter pertaining to the present complaint and in the light of the all above, we find the OP’s repudiation letter Ex.C3 dated 23.02.2016 as appropriate and ‘legal’ measured against the terms of the related policy and thus ORDER for the dismissal of the present compliant with however no order as to its costs. The complainant shall also be at liberty to avail of any other departmental ‘remedy’ etc if available (in rules/ as gracious measures etc), & if he so desires or is so advised. 

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

       (Naveen Puri)

                                                                           President.

ANNOUNCED:                                         (Jagdeep Kaur)

August 23,2016.                                                 Member.

*MK*