BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 543 of 2015 Date of Institution: 11.12.2015
Date of Decision: 30.3.2016
Harmeet Kaur, Wife of Tarsem Singh, Son of Sukhdev Singh, Resident of village Kulgari, P.O. Sodhi Nagar, District Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
- Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Jeewan Jyoti, Model Town, Malwal Road, Ferozepur City.
2. Life Insurance Corporation Of India(Head Office), United India, Ist and 3rd Floor, Next to Canara Bank, Near Corporation Circle, J.C Road, Bangalore.
3. Harsh Kumar Jain, Agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Resident of village Kulgari, P.O. Sodhi Nagar, District Ferozepur..
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. B.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate.
For opposite parties No.1 and 2 : Sh. Vishal Arora, Advocate.
For opposite party No.3 : Sh. Karan Garg, Advocate.
C.C. No. 543/2015 //2//
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the husband of the complainant had purchased one money back insurance policy bearing No.473730174 of 20 years from opposite party No.1, through opposite party No.3 as opposite party No.3 was the agent of opposite parties No.1 and 2, which was commenced on 28.06.2013, sum insured of Rs.1,30,000/-. The complainant was the nominee of her husband Tarsem Singh in the policy. Further it has been pleaded that the husband of the complainant was an illiterate person. Opposite party No.3, who was the agent of opposite parties No.1 and 2 had received the installments of the above said policy regularly. The terms of the policy are that on the death of the insured before the date of maturity, the insured will get sum assured i.e. Rs.1,30,000/- and vested bonus. Further it has been pleaded that the husband of the complainant had died on 24.05.2015, due to illness. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite parties No.1 and 3 and also gave an application for the claim of the above said policy, through opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1 to release the claim. But all in vain. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to release the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and vested bonus alongwith interest @18% per annum till the
C.C. No. 543/2015 //3//
realization. The opposite parties be further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and to pay Rs.11,000/- as legal expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have appeared and filed their joint written reply to the complaint, wherein certain preliminary objections have been raised that date of commencement as 28.6.2013 and half yearly premiums of Rs.4334/- each lapsed for non-payment of premium due 12/2014 as was apparent from the status report of the policy in question and the same was also not deposited within a grace period of 30 days provided for half yearly policies as per terms and conditions of the policy; that only three half yearly premium have been paid to LIC in respect of the policy in question; that even the said policy was not revived till his death on 24.5.2015 and as the policy was lying in lapsed condition at the time of the death of the life assured on 24.5.2015, so nothing was payable under the policy; that according to the rules of the Corporation, the agent has no authority to collect any money or to accept any risk for and on behalf of the Corporation or to bind the Corporation in any manner whatsoever. On merits, the preliminary objection have been reiterated and other allegations of the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 has appeared through his counsel namely Sh. Karan Garg and filed its written reply to the complaint raising certain preliminary objections interalia that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form against the opposite party No.3 as he is only the agent of the opposite parties No.1 and 2; that the present complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious; that the complainant has not come to the court
C.C. No. 543/2015 //4//
with clean hands; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and the complainant has got no locus standi and has got no cause of action against opposite party No.3. On merits, opposite party No.3 had never received any application from the complainant at any point of time nor she had ever approached opposite party No.3. The matter was not related to opposite party No.3 rather the same was related to opposite parties No.1 and 2. Opposite party No.3 was the only agent of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and he was not a competent authority rather opposite parties No.1 and 2 are the competent authority to pay the claim of the complainant. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1&2/1 to Ex.OP-1&2/6 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 2. Similarly, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the policy of insurance was purchased by the complainant on 19.12.2013 when the proposal form was got signed from the complainant by the agent of the LIC i.e. respondent No.3. As a matter of Rule, the policy was to commence from 19.12.2013 and not from 28.06.2013 as mentioned in the policy. He further argued that the complainant does not know the English. He can only read and
C.C. No. 543/2015 //5//
write Punjabi. The attention of this Forum was drawn to the proposal form produced by opposite parties as O.P.2/2, which is written in English and all the columns have been filled by the agent himself and even there is no mention that the contents of the proposal form were read over and explained to him. The declaration is in Hindi and English Language, but the words " that the contents of the declaration has been read over and explained to the life assured" is not mentioned, which clearly proves that the policy being effective from 28.06.2013 was not explained to the insured. The counsel further argued that the perusal of the receipts ExC3 and C4 would reveal that the same were deposited on 26.05.2014 and 25.12.2014 respectively. Taking the date of issuance of policy and commencement as 19.12.2013, the deposit was made well within six months as the six months from 19.12.2013 was to expire on 18.06.2014 and the second instalment was deposited on 26.05.2014 and further the third instalment was deposited on 25.12.2014, which is again within the grace period of 30 days as admitted by the opposite parties in its written statement. The fourth instalment was to become due on 18.06.2015 and admittedly the insured died on 24.05.2015, so it is abundantly clear that the insured died well within the currency of the policy and the policy has not lapsed on 24.05.2015 when the insured died. Even the counsel for the complainant has drawn our intention to the fact that even if we take the effective date as 28.06.2013, even then the second instalment fell due on 27.12.2013 and was to lapse after expiry of grace period of 30 days. Now the perusal of C3 shows that the second instalment was deposited on 26.05.2014 and when the policy has lapsed why the opposite party accepted the premium and continued the policy. Similarly, similar in the position of ExC4 it is clearly proved that the opposite party had been accepting the premium even after the grace period and thus the opposite parties estopped by its own act and
C.C. No. 543/2015 //6//
conduct to say that the policy lapses after grace period of six months. The counsel requested for acceptance of the complaint and for release of benefits available under the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the payment was not deposited by the insured within the grace period and as such the policy was lying in lapse condition at the time of the death of the insured. He cited many rulings in support of his contentions. He further argued that no benefit can be given to the insured as the policy has already lapsed, when the insured died. The counsel for opposite party No.3 admitted that he is agent of opposite party, but denied his liability in a roundabout manner.
7. This Forum has minutely perused the documents and is inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the complainant. This Forum finds that the proposal form OP2/2 is not in the hand of insured as the same is written in English and even it is not mentioned in the declaration that the contents of the proposal form and the policy being commenced from 28.06.2013 does not find mentioned. The insured is a simple rustic villager and is not supposed to know as to what is written in the proposal form and the insurance policy which are in English language. So, the commencement date cannot be taken as 28.06.2013 when the proposal form was got signed from the complainant on 19.12.2013. Moreso, deposit of further two instalments also corroborates the version of the complainants, otherwise had the policy been made effective from 28.06.2013 , the opposite party would not have accepted the second premium on 26.05.2014 when the policy had already lapsed, because the first premium fell due on 27.12.2013 and 30 days grace period expired on 27.01.2014. Similarly, the opposite party would not have accepted the third premium on 25.12.2014 as the
C.C. No. 543/2015 //7//
grace period for the third premium also expired on 27.07.2014. All this shows that the policy was effective from 19.12.2013. This Forum fully agrees with the arguments of the counsel for the complainant that acceptance of the premiums even after the expiry period estops the opposite party from raising the plea that the policy was lying in the lapse condition. Now, taking the commencement date, 19.12.2013, the third premium fell due on 18.12.2014 and the fourth premium fell due on 18.06.2014 but the insured died much before the fourth premium became due as the insured is stated to have died on 24.05.2014, so we find that from both the angles the stand of the opposite party falls flat. The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in taking a false stand is clearly proved.
8. Since as discussed above, it is proved on the file that the insured died on 24.05.2014, when the policy have not lapsed and as such it was a valid policy at the time of the death of insured, which occurred on 24.05.2014. Admittedly, the complainant is the legal heir of the deceased. So she is entitled to get all the benefits admissible under the policy. so we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant under the circumstances is entitled to get all the benefits under the policy. The complainant is further entitled to receive interest @9% after leaving 3 months period from the date of the death of the insured on the amount found permissible taking the policy being in existence at the time of the death of the insured. We also award Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as she has been subjected to unnecessary harassment, mental pain and agony. This order is directed to be
C.C. No. 543/2015 //8//
complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
30.03.2016 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
