BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.365 of 2019
Date of Institution: 11.07.2019
Date of Decision : 04.08.2022
- Saroj aged about 63 years wife of Shri Vijay Modi
- Vijay Modi, aged about 64 years son of Shri Radhey Sham Singla, both residents of Neem Wali Gali, Ward No.11, Water Works Road, Kalanwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, 3,4,5 SCO Sector 1, Rohtak, through its Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chautala Road, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……………MEMBER
Present: Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops) on the averments that son of complainants namely Shri Rohit Singla during his lifetime had purchased a life insurance policy i.e. LIC’s New Money Bank Plan (20 years) bearing policy No. 179983716 on 28.1.2016 from op no.1. That as per the terms and conditions of the policy, son of complainants had to deposit a sum of Rs.8009/- yearly as premium of the policy for 16 years and sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/-. At the time of purchase of the policy, son of complainants deposited a sum of Rs.8009/- with the op no.1 as premium and not only this, he also continued to pay the amount of premium to op no.1 against renewal premium receipt. The son of complainants was never declared defaulter in making the payments of premiums, neither any notice regarding any outstanding amount of premium was issued to their son nor any notice regarding cancellation/ termination of the policy was ever issued to him and thus the policy was/is in operation/ existence till the date of death of son of complainants. It is further averred that on 2.12.2018, son of complainants came to Sirsa from Kalanwali for some work and on the same day after being free from the work, he was returning back to Kalanwali by train during night, but he did not reach Kalanwali till morning and his mobile was also not reachable. Unfortunately early morning, complainants received information that their son Rohit Singla had sustained multiple injuries on his person in a railway accident and immediately after receipt of information, they reached at the spot where they found that their son had been taken to Civil Hospital Sirsa by the police. On 3.12.20218 he was declared to be dead by the doctors on account of injuries received by him. Post mortem examination was also conducted on his body on 3.12.2018 and the police also conducted enquiry in this regard and also found the deceased to be dead on account of injuries received by him in the railway accident. It is further averred that he was only son of the complainants and they were full dependent upon his earnings as he was running a Depot of Government of Haryana. That after the death of their son, the complainants contacted the ops time and again telephonically and by making personal visits and requested to indemnify their claim under the insurance policy but the ops are avoiding the requests of complainants on one false pretext or the other and have not given any satisfactory reply in this regard. That such act and conduct on the part of ops comes under the ambit of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on account of which complainants have suffered unnecessary harassment and hardship. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no cause of action and locus standi, concealment of true and material facts etc. On merits, it is submitted that as per request and demand of the deceased Rohit Singla, the policy in question with date of commencement 28.01.2016, FUP-01/2018, Plan & Term : 820/20/15 was issued. The premium thereof was Rs.8009/- on yearly basis and sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/- and nominee for that policy is Shri Vijay Kumar. The date of death is 2.12.2018 and the policy stand lapsed due to non payment of premiums of the above said policy. Only two yearly premiums were paid in this policy and thereafter premiums were not deposited by life assured since 01/2018 till death of L.A. Hence, as per terms and conditions of above policy, nothing is payable. It is submitted that as the premiums of the policy due at their relevant time were not paid by the life assured, as such as per the terms and conditions of the policy, nothing is payable. It is further submitted that the record of the Civil Hospital has not been annexed with the policy record and the relevant para of the complaint is not providing any date and number of the FIR. Moreover, it is admitted that it was a railway accident, as such any movement or any proceeding with regard to filing any petition or application before the Railway Authority has not been annexed with the complaint nor mentioned in the complaint. Lastly, it is again reiterated that at the time of death of life assured, the policy was in lapsed condition due to non payment of premium, hence nothing is payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. Moreover, the complainants did not knock the door of the competent authorities of LIC. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The complainants have tendered affidavit of Sh. Vijay Modi complainant no.2 as Ex.CW1/A, copy of certificate of Inspector Food & Supplies Kalanwali (Sirsa) Ex.C1, copy of authorization letter for appointment as Depot Holder Ex.C2, copy of ID Card Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copies of voter cards Ex.C5, Ex.C6, policy schedule Ex.C7, copy of renewal premium receipt dated 30.1.2017 Ex.C8, copy of application dated 23.2.2019 Ex.C9, copy of postal receipt Ex.C10 and copies of adhar cards Ex.C11 and Ex.C12.
4. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajendra Singh Manager (Legal) Ex.R1, copy of status report of policy Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file.
6. Admittedly, the son of complainants namely Rohit Singla, since deceased had purchased a life insurance policy namely LIC’s New Money Back Plan (20 years) bearing policy No. 179983716 on 28.01.2016 from the ops by paying annual premium amount of Rs.8009/- and he was to pay annual premium of Rs.8009/- for a period of 16 years and the sum assured of the policy was Rs.1,00,000/-. From the copy of renewal premium receipt dated 30.1.2017 Ex.C8, it is also evident that said Rohit Singla life assured deposited second annual premium amount of Rs.8009/- on 30.1.2017 and third annual premium was to be paid by him on 30.01.2018. The life assured Rohit Singla died on 2.12.2018 in an accident but however, as the third due premium amount of Rs.8009/- which was due on 30.01.2018 was not paid by said Rohit Singla, the policy in question became lapsed and same was also not got renewed by life assured before his death as premium was due on 30.01.2018 and his death took place on 2.12.2018 i.e. after 11 months and as such policy in question was in lapsed condition. The life assured was required to pay due premium within grace period of one month i.e. up to end of month of February, 2018 as per terms and conditions of the policy but as premium was not paid within grace period, the policy became lapsed. Clause 3 of the policy schedule regarding revival of discontinued policies also stipulates as under:-
3. Revival of Discontinued Policies. If the Policy has lapsed due to non payment of due premium within the days of grace, it may be revived during the lifetime of the life assured, but within a period of 2 consecutive years from the date of the first unpaid premium and before the date of maturity on submission of proof of continued insurability to the satisfaction of the Corporation and the payment of all the arrears of premium together with interest (compounding half year) at such rate as fixed by the Corporation from time to time.
7. From the above said clause 3 of the policy schedule, it is evident that life assured was required to get the policy revived which was lapsed due to non payment of premium on 30.01.2018 but till the date of his death i.e. 2.12.2018 for period of 11 months he did not get the policy revived by making payment of premium amount and as such policy was in lapsed condition at the time of his death. As such, complainants are not entitled for any benefit of lapsed policy and as complainants themselves have placed on file policy schedule as Ex.C7 containing terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, they cannot take the plea that no notice regarding any outstanding amount of premium was issued to their son nor any notice regarding cancellation of the policy was ever issued to him because the terms and conditions of the policy printed on the policy schedule itself says that if the premium is not paid before the expiry of the days of grace i.e. period of 30 days, the policy lapses but in this case premium was not paid by life assured for 11 months. As mentioned above, since the policy was in lapsed condition, complainants are not entitled to the sum assured or any other benefit of the policy in question.
8. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President,
Dated: 04.08.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
