Punjab

Sangrur

CC/97/2019

Jasveer Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Sanjeev Goyal

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 97

 Instituted on:   12.03.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     13.06.2024

 

Jasveer Kaur aged about 37 years wife of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, resident of Village Kakra, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Railway Station Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

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

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv.

For Opposite parties         :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                             Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that husband of the complainant, namely, Shri Gurmeet Singh during his life time purchased an insurance policy from the OPs bearing number 165439781 with the date of commencement as 15.12.2014 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under which premium at the rate of Rs.1577/- on quarterly basis was payable.  The complainant is the nominee under the policy and the amount of insurance was payable in double i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith other benefits in case of accidental death of the life assured.  The insured was paying the premium to the OPs regularly.  Further case of complainant is that unfortunately on 16.04.2017, the husband of the complainant (life assured) after completing his work was coming to his house on his motorcycle  bearing No. PB-13-AQ-4294 and on the way he met his brother and son. Thereafter husband of the complainant on returning seated behind the motorcycle of his father  and at about 7.50 PM when they reached near Lux Studio, Kakra Road, Bhawanigarh, then suddenly another motorcycle bearing number PB-13-AQ-4434 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and struck into the motorcycle of Gurmeet Singh, as a result of which Gurmeet Singh suffered multiple grievous injuries on his person and was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Bhawanigarh and from where he was referred to Amar Hospital, Patiala, where he was declared to be brought dead. Regarding this accident, FIR number 55 dated 17.4.2017 U/S 304-A/279/427IPC was registered at P.S. Bhawanigarh. Post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted at Civil Hospital, Patiala.

2.             Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant being the nominee lodged the claim with the OPs for payment of the accidental claim to the complainant under the policy and submitted all the required documents for release of the claim amount, but the OPs wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the  ground that the policy was in lapsed condition on the date of death. If the opposite party no.3 did not deposit the premium in time with the opposite parties no.1 & 2, then the husband of the complainant cannot be blamed. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 are liable for the act and conduct of their agent i.e. opposite party No.3. Further case of complainant is that the complainant has been paying regularly instalments to the OP number 3 and he was issuing the receipts to the husband of the complainant. Even after the death of husband of the complainant, the opposite party no.3 handed over two receipts dated 14.03.2017 and 15.04.2017 to the complainant. The complainant also submitted the said receipts to the OPs, but the claim was not paid. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by opposite parties number 1 & 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint has not come to this Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unnecessary litigation by filing a false and frivolous complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the husband of the complainant was insured under the policy in question from 15.12.2014 and it is also admitted that premium of Rs.1577/- was payable on quarterly basis and the complainant was the nominee under the policy. The case of the OPs is that as per record of the OPs policy as on the date of death of the policy holder was in lapsed condition as the quarterly premium due for 15.3.2017 was not paid.   It is admitted that the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs on account of death of the policy holder, but the same was repudiated by the OPs on account of lapse of policy due to non payment of premium.  It is further submitted that mode of premium under the policy in question was quarterly, however, the quarterly premium due on 15.3.2017 was not deposited by the policy holder even in the grace period of 30 days from the date when it became due, hence the policy was in lapsed condition  as on date of death of the policy holder and as such nothing is payable to the complainant under the policy in question. Further it is averred that premium due on 15.9.2016 and 15.12.2016 were deposited by the policy holder on 14.3.2017 and 15.4.2017 respectively, and that too upon payment of interest on said amounts. However, the quarterly premium due on 15.03.2017 was not at all paid by him. It is further averred that as per  terms and conditions of the policy, a grace period of one month (not less than 30 days) is provided to the policy holder to deposit the instalment of premium and the grace period for the premium due on 15.03.2017 expired on 14.04.2017, however, same was not deposited by the policy holder, so the policy was in lapsed condition as on the date of death of the policy holder i.e. on 16.04.2017, as such nothing is payable to the complainant under the policy in question and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied. Lastly, the OPs have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

4.             Opposite party No.3 was deleted from arena of opposite parties vide order dated 31.10.2019.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 to Ex.OPs/6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

6.             We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the life assured Gurmeet Singh was insured with the OPs. It is also not in dispute that the life assured Gurmeet Singh died on 16.04.2017 in an accidental death. It is also not in dispute that the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs for the death of Gurmeet Singh and repudiation of the claim by the OPs is also admitted.

8.             In the present case the question for determination is that whether the policy was in lapsed condition on the date of death of the life assured i.e.  on 16.04.2017 and repudiation of the claim is justified or not.  We have very carefully perused the whole of the record of the case file and found that the premium due on 15.03.2017 was not deposited by the life assured even within the grace period of thirty days which was expired on 14.04.2017, as such the policy of the life assured expired on 14.04.2017 and the life assured died on 16.04.2017 after lapsing of the policy in question.  Ex.C-2 is the copy of renewal premium receipt dated 15.4.2017 which clearly shows that the complainant deposited the instalment alongwith late fee pertaining to the period 12/16, meaning thereby it was very well in the knowledge of the life assured that another instalment of premium was due  for 03/2017 on that date also as is mentioned in the column of branch next due in Ex.C-2.. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the life assured was not having any knowledge about the due instalment of premium for 03/2017.  Further as per terms and condition of policy Ex.OPs/2, at page no.2 under the head of conditions and privileges condition number 2 provides: Payment of Premiums: A grace period of one month but not less than 30 days shall be allowed for payment of yearly or half yearly or quarterly premiums and 15 days for monthly premiums. If the premium is not paid before the expiry of the days of grace, the policy lapses.
We may mention that in the present case the life assured Gurmeet Singh died on 16.04.2017, whereas the policy Ex.C-10 relating to the complainant expired on 14.4.2017 even after providing the period of 30 days as grace period.  Further to support this contention, the Manager (Legal) Arun Seth has filed his sworn affidavit Ex.Ops/3. Ex.Ops/4 is the status report of the policy in question vide which it is mentioned that status lapsed.  Ex.OPs/5 is the history sheet of premium paid by the life assured Gurmeet Singh during his life time.   In the circumstances of the case, we find that there is nothing wrong on the part of the OPs in repudiating the claim of the complainant as the policy in question had already expired at the time of death of the life assured Gurmeet Singh. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complaint.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

10.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

                        Pronounced.

 

                June 13, 2024.

 

           (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                  Member                       Member                  President