Punjab

Sangrur

CC/536/2016

Gorakh Parshad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Manjit Singh

02 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 536                                                                                        

                                                                   Instituted on:  05.09.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    02.01.2017

 

Gorakh Parshad resident of Mohalla Gandhi Nagar, Naudhrani Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1.     Life Insurance Corporation of India, 14th Floor,         Yogakshema, J.B.Marg Mumbai, Maharashtra through     its M.D.

 

2.   Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Satta Bazar Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

 

3.     Hira Lal Agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India r/o Bilal Colony, near Naudhrani Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Manpreet Singh,  Advocate                           

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES  No.1&2:    Shri Amit Bedi, Advocate

             

FOR THE OPP. PARTY  No.3:    Shri J.S.Dhiman, Advocate

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Gorakh Parshad complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that his wife Smt. Moti Devi got herself insured for Rs.1,00,000/-  on 28.01.2013 and complainant is nominee under the said policy.  She died on 30.06.2015. The complainant intimated the Op no.3 and submitted  the claim along with requisite documents in July 2015.  The OPs did not clear the claim of the complainant due to lack of death certificate of Moti Devi.  Thereafter the complainant got death certificate of Moti Devi and submitted to the OPs in November 2015 but the OPs did not accede the request of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to clear the claim of the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest  @18% per annum w.e.f 30.06.2015,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs no.1&2, preliminary objections on the grounds of suppression of material facts, cause of action and maintainability have been taken up. On merits,  it has been stated the  policy lapsed for want of payment of regular premium w.e.f. 28.10.2014.  The OPs have no liability whatsoever in the case of lapsed policy.  It is the responsibility of the policy  holder to pay the premiums of his/her policy regularly.  It is mentioned that the complainants have failed  to attach alongwith the complaint,  necessary documents as mentioned. No document has  been supplied to the OPs alongwith the copy of complaint and s such the complainant may be directed to supply  the set of documents attached with the complaint.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.3,  preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability , cause of action, locus standi  and limitation have been taken up. On merits,  it has been stated that  the OP number 3  is working as authorized agent of the OPs no.1 and 2 at Branch office Malerkotla and except that the OP  has no concern whatsoever with the complainant. The complainant never handed over any alleged documents to the answering OP.  The OPs no.1 and 2 are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant, if any.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs.1&2/1, to Ex.OPs.1&2/4 and Ex.OP3/1 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the OPs have specifically stated in the written reply that the  complainant regularly paid premiums upto July 2014 but  the policy  lapsed for want of payment of regular premium  w.e.f.  28.10.2014 and as such  the OPs have no liability whatsoever, in case of lapsed policy.  On the other hand, the complainant has stated in his complaint that premium  of said policy has been regularly paid by the purposer/insured person time to time as per the instructions of the OPs.

6.             The specific stand of the OPs is that  due to non-payment of the regular premium the policy was lapsed  w.e.f. 28.10.2014  and as such the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs and the OPs have no liability  whatsoever in the case of lapsed policy. The complainant has not produced on record any receipt of payment of premium onward July 2014 rather  he has produced on record copies of receipts of premium paid to the Ops upto  July 2014 which proves the case of the OPs that the complainant had not paid premium onward July 2014. Moreover, the complainant has not produced on record any document/ evidence which supports the version of the complainant that he has been paying the premium regularly till death of life assured and under lapsed policy there is no liability of the Ops to pay the claim. As alleged by the complainant and copy of death certificate Ex.C-13 also shows that wife (life assured) of the complainant died on  30.06.2015.  So, there is a gap of about nine months of non-payment of premium of the policy to the OPs.  In support of his version, the OPs has cited a ruling namely  Life Insurance  Corporation of India Vs. Mani Ram, 2005 (3) R.C.R. ( Civil) 582 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that  Consumer Fora cannot add to the terms and conditions of the policy. Once it is a condition of the policy that it will lapse if the installment is not paid on or before the last date of grace period, the policy does not subsist after that and no claim is maintainable. 

7.             In view of the facts stated above, we find force in the version of the OPs  that due to lapsed policy status there is no liability of the OPs to pay the claim amount. As such the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                

                Announced

                January 2, 2017

 

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati)  ( Sarita Garg)               (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                       Member                   Member                         President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-