Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/886/2013

Karnailo Devi W/o Sohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

None for complainant

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                               Complaint No. 886 of 2013.

                                                               Date of institution: 10.12.2013.

                                                               Date of decision: 08.09.2017.

 

Karnailo Devi aged about 40 wife of Shri Sohan Lal resident of village Salempur Bangar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                              Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Commercial belt, Sector 17 HUDA Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

 

        

          …. Respondent.

                    

BEFORE    SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

Present:       None for the complainant.   

                    Sh. SC Garg, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

 

ORDER     (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Complainant Karnailo Devi has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date.(hereinafter  the respondent shall be referred as OP).  

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant are that husband of the complainant namely Shri Sohan Lal son of Shri Ratna Ram purchased a policy No.171663676 dated 28.03.1999 from the OP. The sum assured under the policy was Rs.50,000/- and the installment premium payable on the said insurance policy was Rs.1620/- half yearly. The said insurance policy was a money back policy and the term of the said policy was 20 years. Under the terms and condtions of the said policy, the OP was liable to make the payment of 20% of the sum assured after every five years and after the maturity of the said insurance policy, the complainant was entitled to get the maturity amount and in the said insurance policy Shri Sohan Lal had nominated the complainant as nominee. After purchase of the aforesaid policy, the husband of the complainant regularly made the payment of the premium installment without any default. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant Shri Sohan Lal went away from the house on 13.06.2001 without any intimation to the complainant or any of the family members and he did not come back. The complainant and her family members tried their best to trace out Shri Sohan Lal but to no avail. On this,  complainant got lodged a DDR in respect of the missing of Shri Sohan Lal  on 26.04.2004 with PS Sadar and thereafter, the complainant again got lodged a DDR dated 26.08.2008 with Police Station Sadar, Jagadhri. However, the complainant despite all stringencies deposited the premium installments till year, 2002, but  thereafter the complainant could not deposit the premium installment with the OP in respect of the aforesaid policy as the complainant had no source of income because only source of income of the complainant was her husband Shri Sohan Lal, After missing of Sohan Lal, the complainant and her family members went on the verge of starvation. So, because of these financial stringencies, the complainant could not deposit the premium installments. The complainant has also intimated in this regard to the OP also that she has no source of income to deposit the premium installments as Shri Sohan Lal was missing and in his absence, the complainant has no source of income, so the complainant also requested the OP to disburse the claim amount under the aforesaid  policy but the officials of the OP did not disburse the amount lying under the aforesaid policy because the official of the OP told the complainant that till they will not have any proof of death of Shri Sohan Lal, they could not disburse the insurance amount to the complainant. The complainant filed a suit for declaration before the Court of Shri Sunil Kumar, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bilaspur (Yamuna Nagar) vide Civil Suit No.1271 of 2010 which was decided vide judgment dated 24.07.2013. Keeping in view the above facts,

the Hon’ble Court of Shri Sunil Kumar, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division)  Bilaspur (Yamuna Nagar) vide said judgement dated 24.7.2013  declared Shri Sohan Lal  son of Rattan lal resident of village Salempur Bangar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar as dead. After declaration in respect of death of Sohan Lal the complainant again contacted the officials of OP and requested them to release the claim amount under the aforesaid policy, but firstly the OP averted the complainant on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to do the same. Lastly it has been prayed that OP be directed to pay whole claim amount i.e. sum assured along with interest as well as compensation and litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint of the complainant is not maintainable since the policy in dispute has been lying in lapsed condition and on merit it is stated that Shri Sohan Lal had taken policy

Rs.50,000/- with date of commencement dated 28.03.1999. The premium of this policy was Rs.1620/- payable in half yearly installment. This policy is money back policy and 20% of the sum assured was payable after every five years from the date of commencement i.e. 28.03.1999 as per the above policy terms and conditions. The husband of the complainant Shri Sohan Lal has not paid the premium of the above policy from 28.03.2003 and the policy remained lying in the lapsed condition since 28.03.2003 and since 28.03.2003 no further installment of the premium was deposited by Shri Sohan Lal, Life assured. The complainant made a false story regarding missing of the life assured Shri Sohan Lal just to claim the amount illegally and wrongly from the OP by way of making false story. The answering OP has nothing to do with the source of income of Complainant for depositing the premium of the above policy. Since, the life assured had not paid the premium of the policy in question regularly, therefore, the OP cannot make the payment of the lapsed policy as per terms and conditions of this policy. The complainant never contacted the official of the OP and never submitted any copy of judgment etc. as well as any other documents to the OP. Rest contents of the complainant were denied being wrong and incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents as Annexure C1 to C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Balihar Singh as Annexure RA and documents as Annexure R1 to R3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                Case called several time since morning, but none has appeared on behalf of complainant. The case pertains to the year, 2013 hence, we have no option except to decide the present complaint on merit. We have heard the learned counsel for OP and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                The version of the complainant is that complainant’s husband Late Shri Sohan Lal had purchased a Life Insurance Policy from OP on 28.03.1999 for a sum insured of Rs.50,000/- and the installment of premium to be payable was Rs.1620/- half yearly. The complainant’s husband made the payment of premium regularly +and the husband of the complainant went away from house on 13.06.2001 without any intimation and did not return. A DDR in respect of missing Shri Sohan Lal was lodged on 26.04.2004 and 26.08.2008. Therefore, the complainant could not deposit the premium of installment with the OP as she has no source of income. The complainant has filed a Civil Suit for declaration before Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Bilaspur, Yamuna Nagar and the Hon’ble Court declared Shri Sohan Lal as dead vide order dated 24.07.2013 (Annexure C-5). The complainant requested the OP for release of the claim amount under this policy but the OP refused to pay the same and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP argued that the husband of the complainant has not paid the premium of policy in question after 28.03.2003 and the policy in question is lying in lapsed mode since 28.03.2003. It is further argued that the OP has nothing to do with the source of income of complainant for depositing the premium. It is urged that the complainant has never submitted any proof of death of the life assured Shri Sohan Lal. However, the OP company is ready to pay the paid up value of the policy to the complainant after lodging of the claim as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The counsel for the OP has also referred the case law titled as “Raj Bala Vs. LIC, RP No.1380 of 2012, decided on 19.11.2013 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein it has been held that “ Complainant husband did not return back from his office on 10.10.2001- DDR lodged- complainant paid last premium on 13.01.2001- suit for declaration for declaring dead and Decree to the declaration was passed on 21.05.2010- the date of death of complainant’s husband will be treated as 21.05.2010 (the date i.e. when the suit for declaration was Decreed. In order to successfully maintain the claim for benefit under insurance policy it is necessary for the policy  to have been kept alive by punctual payment of premium until the claim was made. The LIC was justified in turning down the claims by pleading that the policy had lapsed  and  all that could be paid to the claimants was the paid up value of the policies) – Appeal Dismissed.

          and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                After hearing the learned counsel for the OP and going through the record, the foremost question arises which before us for consideration is “whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amount along with all benefits”.

10.               It is not disputed that the complainant’s  husband was having a Life Insurance Policy for the sum assured of Rs.50,000/-. It is also not disputed that the complainant had not deposited the premium of the above said policy from 28.03.2003 onwards and the policy was lying in the lapsed condition since 28.03.2003. The version of the complainant is that her husband –Life assured was missing from 13.06.2001 and the Hon’ble Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bilaspur (Yamuna Nagar) vide order dated 24.07.2013 declared Shri Sohan Lal as dead and in these circumstances she is entitled for claim amount along with all benefits. On the other hand, the version of the OP is that the policy in question was lying in lapsed mode since 28.03.2003 and no further installment/premium was deposited by the Life Assured and as per terms and conditions of the policy in case of lapsed policy the nominee is entitled for only paid up value of the policy on lodging of claim. We have gone through the copy of judgment dated 24.07.2013 passed by Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Bilaspur, (Yamuna Nagar) Annexure C-5 the learned Court passed a decree to the extent that Shri Sohan Lal son of Shri Rattan Lal is dead now and is no more. It means the court has declared Shri Sohan Lal as dead on 24.07.2013, whereas the policy in question had already lapsed from 28.03.2003 as the life assured had failed to deposit the premium till 24.07.2013. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is only entitled for the paid up value of the policy in question and not the entire sum assured along with all benefits.

11.              In view of the facts discussed above and the case law referred by the counsel for the OP, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to whole claim amount of Rs.50,000/- along with other benefits as the policy in question was lying in lapsed mode since 28.03.2003 and the complainant has failed to prove that her husband had died on 13.06.2001. She is however entitled only for paid up value of the policy. Hence, we direct the OP insurance company to pay the paid up value of the policy to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy within one month after lodging of the claim by the complainant . The complaint is disposed of accordingly. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.                

Dated: 08.09.2017        

                                                                   (SATPAL)

                                                                   PRESIDENT

                                                             D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                             AT JAGADHRI

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                   (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                    MEMBER