Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/446/2019

Santosh Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rama Nand

12 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                    Complaint Case No.: 446 of 2019.

                                                    Date of Institution:     08.11.2019.

                                                        Date of order:              12.12.2023.

 

Santosh Devi aged 61 years son of Vijay Kumar resident of Civil Hospital, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                          ….. Complainant.

                                          Versus     

 

Indian Life Bima Nigam, Office HUDA Sector 3, Fatehabad through its Incharge.

….Opposite party.

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

                                                                                

BEFORE: SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER

                   MS. HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.

 

Present:          Shri Rama Nand, Advocate for the complainant.

                  Shri S.K.Dharnia, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint on the grounds that she had purchased a policy bearing No.178919844 dated 28.07.2011 valid for seven years from OP and the complainant had to pay Rs.10233/- on half yearly basis; that the complainant had paid Res.51165/-(five installments) but due to physical disability she could not deposit the further installments; that the complainant requested the OP to refund the deposited amount but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.  

2.                          On notice, OP appeared and contested the complaint by filing its reply wherein it has taken many preliminary objections such as maintainability of the complaint, locus standi and concealment etc. It has been further submitted that the complainant had deposited five half yearly installments to the tune of Rs.10233/- (each) with the replying OP and thereafter she has never visited it; that the policy in question has already been lapsed and that policy was not acquired paid up value as on 28.01.2014, therefore, nothing is payable to the complainant under the said policy. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Other contentions made in the compliant have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavit Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R5.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

4.                          It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased policy (Annexure C4) from the Op and also paid five installments Rs.10233/- (each) with the OP on half yearly basis.  The complainant herself has admitted that due to physical disability she could not deposit the further installment. On the other hand the OP has come with the plea that the policy in question has already lapsed and that policy was not acquiring paid up value facility, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the deposited premium amount. 

5.                          The moot question which requires to be decided whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the deposited amount or not. It is well settled legal position that in a contract of insurance there is a requirement of Uberrima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the assured. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599, while dealing with the contract of insurance held as under:-

 

“16. An insurance contract, is a species of commercial transactions and must be construed like any other contract to its own terms and by itself. In a contract of insurance, there is requirement of uberrima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the  insured. Except that, in other respects, there is no difference between a contract of insurance and any other contract.

 17. The four essentials of a contract of insurance are: (I) the definition of the risk, (ii) the duration of the risk, (iii) the premium, and (iv) the amount of insurance. Since upon issuance of the insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of the risks covered by the insurance policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer.

18. The endeavour of the court must always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. The court while construing the terms of policy is not expected to venture into extra liberalism that may result in rewriting the contract of substituting the terms which were not intended by the parties. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. (General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandmull Jain (1966) 3 SCR 500, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan AIR 1999 SC 3252 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (2004) 8 SCC 644).”

 

It is not the case of the complainant that the she has tried to get the policy renewed by moving any application within grace period or thereafter, therefore, we are of the view that the complaint deserves dismissal because the complainant herself is at fault in not depositing the premium amount resulting into lapsing of the policy in question.  Moreover, the complainant has also failed to produce any document on the case file to show that she was physically disabled and was suffering from paralysied. The complainant has also failed to show that the policy was acquiring paid up value, therefore, the complainant is also not entitled for the same.

6.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Op, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  Both the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 12.12.2023

 

 

                                                                                                        

        (K.S.Nirania)                        (Harisha Mehta)                                  (Rajbir Singh)                     Member                            Member                               President