Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant is a holder of Life Insurance Policy vide No. 395633079 dated: 25/06/2012 named Jeevan Anand Policy.  The first premium amount of the policy was Rs.31,960/- and the 6^th premium was in the month of December 2014.  According to the complainant, in order to remit the above said 6^th premium the Power of Attorney holder and brother of the complainant entrusted a cheque for an amount of Rs. 32,464/- vide a cheque No. 102134 of SBT, Chittar Branch to 2^nd opposite party.  It is contended that unfortunately the cheque was dishonored but the incident of dishonor was not informed by the opposite parties to the complainant.  It is further contended that it was the duty of the opposite parties to inform the incident of the said dishonor of cheque and also it is their duty to return the dishonored cheque to the complainant.  On 07/09/2015 when the complainant went to 2^nd opposite party office for paying the next premium then only the complainant came to know about the dishonor.  It is informed that the said policy was lapsed due to the non payment of the previous premium.  Though the complainant expressed his willingness to regularize his policy by paying the previous premium the opposite parties demanded for certain medical reports and also asked the complainant to pay fines.    It is contended that there is no latches from the complainant for the lapse of the said policy and also contended that this happened due to the willful negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  The non intimation of the dishonor of the cheque is a fundamental duty of the opposite parties so that opposite parties committed deficiency in service against the complainant.  It is contended that the policy documents itself reveals the mandatory stipulation about the policy and the right of the insured.  According to the complainant the opposite parties has to pay compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience caused and experienced, harassment and humiliation, and loss of dignity of being branded as a defaulter to the complainant.   Hence, the complaint to direct the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party to regularize the policy of the complainant compensation, cost, etc.etc.  
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum and filed a joint version as follows. The version of 1^st & 2^nd opposite party are as follows.  According to this opposite parties the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contended that the complainant is an insured of the opposite parties and opposite parties are insurer of the complainant.  The half yearly premium payable to the opposite parties are Rs.31,960/- on 25^th June and December, every year.   It is contended that the complainant defaulted the premium due on 12/2014 and grace period of the said premium ended on 25/01/2015.  The authorized agent of the complainant handed over a cheque bearing No.102134 dated:20/02/2015 for an amount of Rs. 32,466/- of SBT, Chittar Branch to 2^nd opposite party which was dishonored and the said cheque, bank memo with intimation letter dated:25/04/2015 have been sent to the complainant as per the address given in proposal form.  It is contended that the complainant’s unawareness of the dishonored cheque cannot be accepted and the reason for the dishonor is not the fault of the opposite parties.  It is further contended that the dishonor of the cheque was intimated to the policy holder/complainant vide letter dated:24/04/2015.  It is again contended that as per policy condition if the premium is not paid within the grace period the policy would have been lapsed.  As per policy condition 3, the said policy can be revived by on submission of sufficient proof to the satisfaction of the opposite parties by payment of all arrears of premium, interest and fine.  The policy holder is well aware of all these terms and conditions.  It is binding to him.  The policy holder herein is not prompt in remitting the premium though he is pleaded otherwise.  It is further contended that the opposite party allowed certain relaxation in the revival of the lapsed policy by payment of arrears of premium with interest within 6 months of the due date, for which opposite party has to be insisted certain details of health requirements.  According to this opposite parties there is no willful negligence or omission on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore, no deficiency in service can be alleged against this opposite parties.  It is further contended that as per the administrative instruction issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The following requirements are necessary for a revival.

1). Arrears of Premiums (Premium for Dec 2015 also has become

     due now)

2). Interest on two premiums, as on date

3). Cheque Dishonor Charges

4). Declaration of Good Health in Form No. 680 &

5). Medical requirements to consider revival of the policy.

According to this opposite parties no relief prayed by the complainant are allowable. Therefore this opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost of the opposite parties.

4. This Forum peruse the complaint, version and records before us and framed the following issues for consideration. 

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant’s Power of Attorney holder and his brother one Rajesh K Nair he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he is examined as PW1 in this case. Through the PW1, Ext. A1 to A3 are also marked.  Ext. A1 is the authorization letter dated: 05/11/2015.  Ext. A2 the Jeevan Anand Policy bearing No. 395633079. Ext. A3 (subject proof) is the RTI Application dated: 17/09/2016.  On the other side DW1 filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Ext. B1 and B2 in their favour.  DW2 is also examined in favour of the opposite parties.  Through him Ext. B3 to B5 and Ext. A3 (subject proof) were also marked. Ext. B1 is the letter from Asst. Federal Bank Manager.  Ext. B2 is the letter dated:24/02/2015 sent by the complainant.  Ext. B3 is the photocopy of the dispatch register page No.203.  Ext. B4 series are the copy of e-mail print out dated: 26/07/2015 and letter (2 in number).  Ext. B5 is the copy of letter dated: 01/10/2015.  On 16/11/2016 the evidence of this case is closed and the case is posted for hearing.  Again the opposite party filed IA 131/2016 for a further re-cross of PW1 that was also allowed by the Forum.  After the closure of evidence this Forum heard both sides. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite party’s Counsel filed an argument note apart from hearing.
6. Point No.1: The opposite parties herein is seriously contended that the case of the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on fact, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint and also contended that there is no deficiency in service committed on the side of the opposite parties.  When we appreciate the evidence before us it can be seen that the complainant is a policy holder of 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties and also brought in evidence to see that the complainant paid a consideration to opposite parties for the said policy and it is admitted that the above said Jeevan Anand Policy was issued by 1^st & 2^nd opposite party in favour of the complainant.  All the said facts are cogent and conclusive evidence to see that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are service providers of the complainant. Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.
7. Point Nos. 2 and 3:   For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainant the complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder and his brother is examined as PW1. It is deposed that PW1 who is the brother of the actual complainant presented the cheque for an amount of Rs. 32,464/- bearing No. 102134 of SBT, Chittar Branch in favour of the opposite parties and he had not been get any intimation with regard to the dishonor of the said cheque.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainant he produced and marked the authorization letter Ext. A1.  It is issued by the original complainant in favour of PW1 his brother.  Ext. A2 the Jeevan Anand Policy bearing No. 395633079.  Ext. A3 (subject proof) is an information received by the complainant as per the provision of Right Information Act.  This Ext. A3 is marked as subject to proof hence there is no need of any further discussion with regard to this exhibits. 
8. On the other side the opposite parties examined DW1 in their favour.  The DW1 is the Assistant Divisional Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation. She who deposed in chief examination that the cheque referred in this complaint vide cheque No. 102134 for Rs. 32,466/- was dishonored due to the reason of funds insufficient.  In order to prove this fact she produced the dishonor memo stating the reason which was issued by the drawer’s bank i.e, Federal Bank, Chittar Branch.  It is deposed that on 24/02/2015 1^st & 2^nd opposite party sent a notice stating the fact of dishonor with regard to that cheque to the complainant and the office copy of the letter is also produced and marked as Ext. B2.  She again deposed in chief “Bb-Xn\p tijw \mfn-Xp-hsc bmsXmcp XpIbpw hmZn AS-¨n-«n-Ã.  C§s\ kw`-hn-¨m grace period 30 ദിവസത്തിനകം പണം അടച്ചില്ലെങ്കിൽ 6 മാസം വരെ medical checkup ഇല്ലാതെ പണം അടയ്ക്കാം   premium തുക പലിശ സഹിതം അടച്ച്, medical checkup നടത്തിയാൽ premium പുതുക്കി നൽകാം. O.P യിൽ നിന്ന് വാദിക്ക് സേവനവീഴ്ച ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല”.   As per the deposition of DW1 in chief it can be inferred that subject to certain conditions like medical checkup etc, the lapsed policy can be revived.  It is also point out that the opposite party informed the complainant with regard to the dishonor of cheque on 24/02/2015.  In-cross she answered “cheque dishonor ആയാൽ branch office ൽ നിന്നാണ്  notice അയയ്ക്കുന്നത്..  Satalite office ൽ നിന്ന്  branch office ലേയ്ക്ക് വരുന്ന communication ന് പ്രത്യേക register സൂക്ഷിക്കാറില്ല. Branch Office ൽ നിന്ന് അയയ്ക്കുന്നതിന്  register ഉണ്ട് .Ext. B2 ordinary post ൽ ആണ് അയച്ചത് Ext. B2 policy holder ക്ക് അയച്ചിട്ടില്ല എന്നത് ശരിയല്ല . നിയമപ്രകാരം dishonor ആയ cheque ന് registered notice അയയ്ക്കാൻ L.I.C ക്ക് ബാദ്ധ്യതയുണ്ട് (Q&A)”.   It is true that Ext. B3 is a copy of the dispatch register kept in 2^nd opposite party’s Branch Office.  When we peruse Ext.B3 it is seen that on 23/02/2015 2^nd opposite party sent  a letter to one Aneesh K Nair and a number is also mentioned as ‘GNO 13499’.  When we verify the entry seen in Ext.B3 we cannot take a stand to the effect that the opposite parties sent a letter of dishonor of cheque to the complainant in time with reasonable care.  Anyway this entry seen in Ext. B3 is not at all credible and for taking a decision that entry cannot be relied.  It is also to be noted that even according to DW1, if a cheque is dishonored, it is the duty of the Life Insurance Corporation to issue a registered notice to the concerned.  When we peruse all these facts we can safely arrived in a conclusion that the opposite parties in this case failed to issue a duly registered notice to the complainant.  Even for argument sake it is admitted that the opposite parties are sent an ordinary dishonor notice to the complainant, the complainant even failed to produce any certificate to show that they issued a notice as alleged. Moreover it is admitted that the opposite parties did not sent any registered notice to the complainant as per law.  The DW2 is the Administrative Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, Ranni Branch she filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and through DW2, Ext.B3 to B5 are marked.  When we examine the cross-examination of DW2 it is interesting to see an answer to a question. “Ext.B3 പ്രകാരം ഹർജികക്ഷിക്ക് notice അയച്ചത് വെളിവാകുന്നില്ലല്ലോ  (A) ഇല്ല .  ധാരാളം കത്തുകൾ വരുന്നതുകൊണ്ട് ആളുകളുടെ പേര് രേഖപ്പെടുത്താറില്ല ordinary post ൽ അയയ്ക്കും.    (Q)cheque dishonor ആയാൽ Regd. Post ൽ letter കക്ഷിക്ക് അയയ്ക്കേണ്ടതില്ലേ (A). ഇല്ല”.     In the light of the testimony of DW2 we can easily inferred that the opposite parties have no definite stand with regard to the issuance of the alleged notice in respect of the dishonor of the cheque.  It can be also attributed that the name mentioned in Ext. B3 despatch register is also seen doubtful.  It is true that the opposite parties learned counsel appearing for this case vehemently argued that the complainant in this case is always a defaulter for the payment of his premium and most of the premiums are also remitted within the grace period.  Anyway even after the grace period the opposite parties are accepted the cheque and the said cheque is presented for encashment by the opposite parties.  The said approach of the opposite parties can be seen as a symptom of receiving the premium from the complainant for regularizing the policy.  If so it can be inferred that if the complainant is ready and willing to pay the default premium with fine subject to the production of medical certificate as directed by the opposite parties the complainant has got a right to revive his policy.  Further it can be seen that when consider the nature and circumstance of this case the complainant is not eligible to get any kind of compensation as prayed.  But at the same time we can find that the opposite parties in this case are failed to adduce any positive evidence to show that they sent a registered notice to the complainant with regard to the dishonor of cheque within the time limit.  In the light of the evidence discussed above we find that the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service against the complainant, so that the Life Insurance Policy hold by the complainant has been lapsed.  Therefore, the opposite parties are partly liable to the complainant and they have to be revived the Life Insurance Policy of the complainant as requested.  It is seen that 2^nd opposite party is the Branch Manager of 1^st opposite party therefore, 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to the complainant.  Hence, Point No.2 and 3 are found accordingly.
9. In the result we pass the following orders. 

1. The 1^st & 2^nd Opposite parties are directed to revive the policy of the complainant within one month of the receipt of this order subject to the complainant’s payment of arrears of premium with interest as per law and production of proper medical certificate as per the terms and condition of the  Jeevan Anand policy vide No. 395633079.   
2. A cost of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) is also allowed to the complainant from the opposite party 1^st & 2^nd  with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.
3. No order for compensation.

     Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2017.

                                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                     P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                       (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)           :(Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Rajesh. K. Nair

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Authorization letter dated: 05/11/2015.

A2 :  Jeevan Anand Policy bearing No. 395633079

A3 :  (subject proof) is the RTI Application dated: 17/09/2016.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  : Sreedevi. S. Nair

DW2  : P.D. Minimol

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: 

B1: Letter from Asst. Federal Bank Manager dated: 23/02/2015.

B2: E-mail letter dated:24/02/2015 sent by the complainant. 

B3: Photocopy of the dispatch register page No.203. 

B4 series : Copy of e-mail print out dated: 26/07/2015 and letter (2 in 

                  number).

B5: Copy of letter dated: 01/10/2015.

                                                                                             (By Order)

         Copy to :- 1) Ramesh. K. Nair,

                                 Aivelil House, Seethathode P.O,

                                 Pathanamthitta.

                                Represented by

                       Rajesh K. Nair,

                   2) The Divisional Manager,

             Life Insurance Corporation of India,

                                Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash,

                                P.B. No. 609, Nagampadom, Kottayam – 686001.

                            3) The Branch Manager,

                            Life Insurance Corporation of India, Unnithan’s Square,

                            Ranni.

                        4) The Stock File.