Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 22.11.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- and family income benefit of Rs. 5,01,064/- to the complainant with 18% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for physical and mental agony.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that the husband of the complainant Late Ramashankar Prasad had applied for unit link child plan Prabhat Tara of opposite parties insurance policy on 25.03.2010 and the opposite parties have issued policy bond no. 00229929 of New Dhruv Tara and the date of commencement of the risk is from 31.05.2010. It has been further stated that in the said policy annual premium is Rs. 25,000/- and death sum insured is Rs. 4,00,000/- and the family income benefit is of Rs. 5,01,064/-. The complainant has annexed the insurance policy bond with terms and conditions including the receipt as annexure – 1.
It has also been stated that insured has also opted for payment of premium in half early mode as will appear from the policy bond. The premium of Rs. 12,500/- was paid vide receipt no. 1086406 dated 31.03.2010 against which the above said policy was issued and the date of commencement risk was from 31.05.2010.
Further, case of the complainant is that the insured died on 31.12.2010 at 3:30 PM due to road accident at Aurai, District – Bhadoi, State – U.P. The complainant intimated the opposite parties in time and all relevant documents was submitted which was duly acknowledged by opposite parties on 24.03.2011. The company (opposite parties) has duly informed vide letter dated 17.12.2011 that they have transferred the fund value of policy amounting to Rs. 13,230/- in account of the complainant but the opposite parties despite various effort did not settle the genuine claim of the complainant. Annexure – 2 has been issued by the opposite parties which disclose the real affair and the intention of the opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant has sent E – mail to the opposite parties on 08.01.2012 which was replied by the opposite parties on 01.02.2012 mentioning therein that the policy lapsed on 30.10.2010 i.e. after completion of grace period and before the date of death of life assured above mentioned letter has been annexed as annexure – 3. The aforesaid letter was replied by complainant vide annexure – 4.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 to 4 a reply (written statement) has been filed in Para – 3 of which the following fact have been asserted, “the the statement made in Paragraph no. 4 (v) is misconceived because the claim of the insured has been settled as per terms and condition of the policy issued hence no question of suppressing terms and conditions of the policy can be attributed upon the answering opposite parties. It is fact that on the date of accident the policy was in lapsed condition hence the so called plea of the complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law. This is more so because the terms and condition of the policy is binding between the parties and as per policy condition a grace period of 30 days is only allowed and as the same in the present case expired on 31.12.2011 (because policy was effective from 30.05.2010 and half yearly premium was due on 30.11.2010 and the grace period of 30 days expired on 30.12.2010) hence, it cannot be disputed that on the date of accident i.e. 31.12.2010, the policy was in lapsed condition. Hence, the amount settled by the company is apt and reasonable and no further claim of the complainant is maintainable in terms of policy conditions which are binding between the parties to the Agreement.”
Heard both the parties.
The complainant has asserted that although the grace period expired after 30 days but as the month was of 31 days hence it can be extended upto 31.12.2010. it has been submitted by the opposite parties counsel that as per condition of policy a grace of period of 30 days is only allowed and in the present case it expired on 30.12.2010 and as the insured died on 31.12.2010 hence the policy was is lapsed condition.
On behalf of complainant a Judgment passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in revision Petition no. 1268 of 1998 (Smt. Pramila Vikram Khilade Vrs. The Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India) has been annexed in which it is stated that the grace period of one month shall not be less than 30 days and one month can extend to 31 days but replying the aforesaid submission the learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed a Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Vikram Greentech (I) ltd. and Another Vrs. New India Assurance (II 2009 CPJ 34 SC) in Para – 15 of the Judgment, it is held that the Endeavour of the court must always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. Hence, in the light of aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Suprem Court, the Insurance cover cannot revived after 30 days.
In our opinion the principle led by the Hon’ble Apex Court will prevail and as such the grace period stands expired on 30.12.2010 and it cannot stretched to 31.12.2010.
For the reason stated above this complaint stands dismissed.
Member Member(F) President
