The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition under Section 12 filed by one Smt. Nirada Barman, Wife of Late Tulu Barman, resident of Dakshin Bishnupur, P.O. - Fatepur, P.S- Kalitaganj, Dist.- Uttar Dinajpur which was registered as Consumer Case No. 65/18 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as evidence is that the son of the complainant Biresh Barman now deceased purchased a L.I.C policy from Kaliyaganj Branch on 28/01/2014 bearing policy No-457910329 and the said policy was in force up to 28/01/2030 and the premium of the said policy was Rs.7620/- annually and the premium was paid up to 24/02/2016.

On 24/12/2010 the son of the complainant also purchased  another policy bearing No-456662133 from Kaliyaganj Branch and half yearly premium was Rs.3032/-.

Unfortunately the son of the complainant Biresh Barman died on 11-08-2017 by an accident for which a police case was started at Pet Basheerabad PS under Section 304 A I.P.C.

It has been further stated that the complainant was the nominee in respect of the two policies purchased by her deceased son (Biresh Barman). After the death of Biresh Barman the complainant lodged a claim along with the original documents and charge sheets etc. After some time the L.I.C paid Rs.32,650/- in respect of the Policy No-157910329 though the sum assured  of the policy was Rs.1,00,000/- and for the death of her son the complainant is entitled to get Rs.200000/-.   In respect of second policy No-4566613 the L.I.C has paid only                          Rs.154700/- but the sum assured of Rs.125000/-. But for the accidental death the complainant is entitled to get  required amount for which the complainant prayed for claiming the amount along with compensation of Rs.100000/- and Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and agony and the total claim amount of Rs.407650/-.

The petition has been contested by the L.I.C by filling W.V denying all the material allegations as leveled against the L.I.C contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable and the suit is barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence.

The definite defence case is that the policy holder (Biresh Barman) did not pay the premiums as such the policy was lapsed. Accordingly, due to the lapsed policy the accidental benefit is not available. So the L.I.C paid the amount and the amount which was paid by the deceased Biresh Barman along with the interest. As such the complainant is not entitled to get the relief in present form.

During trial the complainant (Nirada Barman) herself was examined as PW1 and she was cross examined and she filed some documents as per policy. On the other hand the L.I.C did not adduce any evidence to their defence.

Now the point for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or not.

          D E C I S I O N  W I T H  R E A S O N S:

At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant submitted that the accidental benefit was not allowed to the complainant though as per policy the complainant is entitled to get the accidental benefit. On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P argued that as per policy clause 11 the accidental benefit is allowable if the policy was in force at the time of death. On perusal of the record it is found that at the time of death of Biresh Barman that is on 11-08-2017 the policy was not in force. In respect of policy No-457910329 the premium was due on 1/17 but no premium was paid. In respect of another policy that is policy No-45662133 and premium was paid up to 6/16 and from 12/16 the premium was unpaid and the Biresh Barman died on 11-8-2017, so at the time of death of Biresh Barman the policies were not in force i.e. in lapse condition. So, definitely as per policy conditions the complainant is entitled to get a benefit as claimed. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the policy can be revived. But it is no doubt the policy can be revived but the policy holder died. So, how the policy can be revived? So the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant that the policy can be revived is not at all maintainable as because the policy holder died. If the policy holder was in alive then the question of revival of policy will come to the consideration. So, considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

 C.F. paid is correct,

Hence, it is

                                ORDERED:

 That the complainant case being No.CC-65/18 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.