ORDER

Date of order:     08 -06-2017

Upendra Jha,Member       

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-01-2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Arrah in Complaint Case No. 105 of 2010 by which the appellants are directed to pay the respondent the insurance amount Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees six lacs only) of both policies with 9% interest, Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- by way of litigation cost within two months failing which interest @ 12% will be payable.

2.                Shortly, the case is that the father of the complainant Ram Dev Singh purchased two insurance policies of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lacs only) and Rs.2,00,000/- altogether Rs.6,00,000/- on 29-11-2004 in which the  complainant is the nominee. Premium of both policies Rs. 19,402/- and Rs. 11,418/- was deposited. Policy Bonds were issued on 27-12-2004 & 28-12-2004. But the life assured died on 15-12-2004.The  appellants-O.Ps. alleged that both policy bonds were issued of a dead person, therefore there is no liability under the proposed insurance. The complainant claimed the insurance amount of both policies but the O.P.-appellant did not settle the claim. Legal notice was issued on 15-07-2008. When the dispute did not resolve, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The O.Ps.-appellants contested the case. After hearing parties the District Forum passed the impugned order against which this appeal is preferred.

3.                           Respective written notes of arguments have been filed by the parties. Heard and perused the District Forum order.

4                            District Forum holding deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-O.P. for not settling the claim and claim was wrongly repudiated in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in IV (2011) CPJ 119(SC), the District Forum allowed the claim and passed the impugned order.

5.                           The counsel for the appellants submit that the complainant-respondent has cheated and misrepresented in this case which cannot be decided in the Consumer Forum. The District Forum has only relied on the Hon’ble Apex Court decision held in IV (2011) CPJ 119 (SC) which is not applicable in this case. In the premium receipt it is clearly mentioned that acceptance of premium does not Constitute Risk commencement on the receipt of premium date. Hence, the repudiation of claim is justified. As the life assured died prior to the issuance of both policies therefore there is no liability under the proposed insurance. District Forum failed to appreciate that the respondent did not produce any document which shows any negligence or unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Hence, the order under appeal is fit to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

6.                           The counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that after proper checking and with full satisfaction, the amount of premium of both policies was accepted, receipts were issued. Policy Bonds were issued on 27-12-2004 and 28-12-2004, respectively but the life assured died on 15-12-2004.The District Forum has rightly relied upon the Apex Court Judgment reported in IV (2011) CPJ 119 (SC) in which the cheque of premium amount was received by the Company at 4 P.M. on 07-05-1998.  Insurance must be deemed to have commenced from that time and after four hours the vehicle met with an accident. The Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the claim. Onus must be deemed to have covered by the Insurance from the receipt of premium, in this case. On 29-11-2004 the Insurance Company received the premium amount of both the policies; hence, the insurance cover started on 29-11-2004.It was responsibility of the Insurance Company to issue the Policy Bonds within 15 days from acceptance of the premium amount. But Policy Bonds were issued on 27-12-2004 & 28-12-2004 after the death of the policy holder. This plea is not at all tenable in the light of aforesaid judgment of Apex Court. District Forum order is proper and justified. It needs no interference. Appeal having no merits, is fit to be dismissed.

 7.                            We have considered the submissions of parties, perused the order passed by the District Forum as also the material available on record, it appears that the District Forum has considered the matter in right perspective. It is an admitted fact that the life assured had taken two Insurance Policies of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- altogether of Rs.6,00,000/- from the  O.P.-appellant on 29-11-2004 in which the complainant is the nominee. Proposal forms of both policies were signed on 29-11-2004 premium amount Rs. 19,402/- for Policy No. c202456041 and Rs. 11,418/- for Policy No. C2024456054 was deposited to the O.P. vide Receipt No. 3679 and 3680 dated 29-011-2004, which is on the record. Upon receiving the Insurance Proposal and after receiving the premium amount on 29-11-2004 the Insurance Company was required to take decision within 15 days either to accept or to reject the proposal. In case of acceptance of proposal, Policy Bond is issued. In the instant case, after receiving the proposal and premium amount on 29-11-2004 the Insurance Company had to issue the policy Bond on or before 13-12-2004 but both policy Bonds were issued on 27-12-2004 & 28-12-2004. By that time, the policy holder had died on 15-12-2004.  Now, this plea is being taken by the O.P. – Insurance Company that the policy holder died on  15-12-2004 before issuing the Insurance Policies on 27-12-2004 & 28-12-2004. And on this ground, the claim was repudiated. The repudiation on this ground cannot be sustainable as per law.

8.                           The District  Forum has allowed the claim in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court decision reported in IV (2011) CPJ,119 (SC) which held, the risk cover of the Insurance Policy starts from the acceptance of proposal and receiving of  premium amount and not from the date of issuing of Policy Bonds. It is similar matter as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in above mentioned case. Thus, we find the District Forum order proper and well justified. There is no reason to take a different view in this matter. Hence, the District Forum order is affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

       S.K.Sinha                         Renu Sinha                  Upendra Jha                                                                      

      President                           Member (F)                   Member (M)

           Anita