Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/94

Rita Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Manaoj Kumar Tiwari

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-03-08-2018

Date of final hearing-01-12-2022

 Date of Order-01-12-2022

Case No. 94/2018

Rita Devi W/o Late Tej Narayan Rai

R/o Sheopuri Colony Char, P.O & P.S- Chas

District- Bokaro Jharkhand

Vs.

1. Life Insurance Corporation of Inida Bokaro Steel City Branch-II, B.S.City, District- Bokaro Jharkhand

 2. LIC of India, Divisional Office, Hazaribagh District- Hazaribagh

 

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% P.A. on account of death of her husband and to pay Rs. 50,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.

2.  Complainant’s case in brief is that her husband purchased Life                    Insurance  policy  No. 540136815 on 28.10.2002 for Rs. 2,00,000/- and premium was  being paid regularly on due date i.e. on 28.10 of each year. However premium of said policy was not deposited in the year 2016 because her husband became ill and admitted in Muskan Hospital, Chas on 29.11.2016 who died on same day. Further case is that complainant is nominee of the policy who applied for payment of the Insurance amount but it was denied on the ground of nonpayment of premium of 10/2016 hence this case has been filed.

3. W.S. has been filed by the LIC mentioning therein that annual premium was Rs. 2318/-payable on 28.10 of each year and policy commenced on 28.10.2002 but later on said policy was lapsed hence it was revived in the year 2013 after payment of arrears of premium on 21.04.2010 and 10.12.2013 later on the premium of 10/2016 was not paid on due date or during grace period hence policy concerned became lapsed, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the policy payment of Rs. 32,452/- has been correctly made to the complainant and rest of the amount is not payable as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

4. Now point for consideration is that whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed?

5. Opening of the policy and position of the complainant as nominee of the policy is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that premium for the year 2016-17 has not been paid on 28.10.2016 or during grace period rather insured died on 29.11.2016.

6. Annexure-2 of the W.S. shows the terms and conditions of the insurance plan under dispute and the Paid Up Value is “If life assured expire after days of grace and if at least 3 full years premiums have been paid , then only notional paid up  value i.e. (total premiums paid-any extra premium) is payable as death claim”. Annexure-3 of the W.S. is photo copy of the policy concerned and as per terms and conditions of the policy “If the policy is in full force, one of the benefits A or B are payable”. Here in this case policy is lapsed policy. As per para 11 of the policy paper loyalty additions will be paid along with death or maturity benefits provided the policy is in full force. Here in this case it is admitted fact that on the date of death of the insured policy was not in full force rather it was lapsed policy. Therefore, we are of the view that decision of the insurance co. regarding payment of all premiums amount is as per terms and conditions of the policy. Annexure-1 is photo copy of payment receipt through which payment of Rs. 32,452/- has already been made to the complainant through cheque dt. 02.08.2017 but said fact has been concealed or suppressed by the complainant and it has not been disclosed in the complaint petition. In this way complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. Hence we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. and complainant is not entitled to get relief as claimed.

7. In light of above discussion this case is being dismissed on merit and in the facts and circumstance of the case parties shall bear their own costs.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                President

 

                                                                                               

                                                                              (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                  Member