Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 560

                                                          Instituted on     : 14.11.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 09.10.2019.

Nirmala Devi wife of Late Rohtash Singh  resident of 2557 Rejendra Colony, Rohtak.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Subhash Road, Opposite All India Radio, Rothak through its Branch Manager, Rothak.

……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

                   MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Manjit Panchal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.S.P.Gulati, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant’s husband Rohtas Singh had obtained a policy from the opposite party vide policy cover note No.178583393 for a sum of Rs.125000/-. That the husband of the complainant had expired on 12.10.2017. That complainant being class-I heir, widow and nominee of her deceased husband, filed a claim with the opposite party but the officials of the opposite party refused to accept the claim file. That the act of opposite party of rejecting the lawful claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.  As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.125000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party filed its written reply submitting that the opposite party issued a policy bearing no.178583393 for sum assured Rs.125000/- on the life of Sh.Rohtash s/o Sh. Rameshwar  with date of commencement 28.11.2009. That the policy was in lapsed condition at the time of LA’s death as the life assured failed to deposit the due premiums on due dates. Last premium due on 28.08.2011 was paid on 26.09.2011 and the policy has run only for 2 years from the date of commencement and the policy was lying lapsed at the time of death of life assured and as per terms and conditions of the above policy nothing is payable.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and closed his evidence on dated 12.04.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 17.05.2019.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the date of commencement of policy is 28.11.2009 and the date of death of L.A. is 12.10.2017. Last premium was paid on 26.09.2011 and the next premium was due on 11/2011, which was not paid by the L.A. and the policy was lapsed since 11/2011 due to non payment of premiums. The L.A. died on 12.10.2017 and at the time of death of LA, the policy was in lapsed condition. In this regard ld. counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the law cited in Revision Petition No.2547 of 2012 decided on 04.02.2015 by the Hon’ble NCDRC titled as LIC of India Vs. Jawahar lal Bajpayee, whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Premium due March 1999 was not paid and LA died on 27.07.1999. Since the policy was in lapse condition, claim was righty rejected and LIC was not under obligation to pay the claim”.   In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Accordingly the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

6.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

7.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

09.10.2019.                                                ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.

                                                                        ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.