THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF MARCH, 2024

APPEAL NO.1803/2013

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.SUNITA C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER

Chief Executive Officer,

Max New York Life Insurance

Company Limited,

A Company incorporated under                      ...Appellant/s

The provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,

Having its registered office at

Max House, No.1, Dr.Jha Marg,

Okhla, New Delhi-110 020

And corporate office at

12^th Floor, DLF square,

Jacaranda Marg, Gurgaon – 122002

(Through its Authorized Signatory

Mr.Anil Sharma, Senior Manager – Claims)

(By Sri.M.Mohan Kumar, Advocate)

-Versus-

1.      Mohammed Issaq Ahmed,

          S/o late Altaf Ahmed,                          ...Respondent/s

R/o 201, Main Road,

Dever Javanhalli,

Opp. Qhuraishi Masjid,

Bengaluru-560 005

2.      Asst. Manager,

          New York LIC Ltd,

          Vimal Chamber,

          Next to Deepam Silks,

          MG Road, Bengaluru-122 001

(By R-1-Smt.T.G.Sudha, Advocate)

(By R-2- Absent)

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 in complaint No.635/2013 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the 1^st Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru which directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh with interest @12% per annum from 9-5-2009 along with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not settling the claim towards the death of the life assured one Mr.Altaf Ahmed who had obtained a policy from this appellant authority for a sum assured amount of Rs.1.00 lakh bearing policy No.254968589, the policy was issued on 21-11-2005 and he was paying regularly a premium towards the policy. But in the year 2008, he failed to continue the policy due to which the policy became lapsed and they have issued a notice for payment of the due and called upon him to revive the policy, but the said policy was not renewed or revived by the life assured. Subsequently they have received a claim for an assured amount from the complainant since he is nominee of the said policy. After scrutiny they have noticed that due to none payment of the premium amount, they have returned the amount of Rs.7,444.24 as surrender value to the complainant and the same was accepted.

2. Aggrieved by the said, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for payment of the entire assured amount. The complainant during pendency before the District Commission has alleged that an amount of Rs.7,444.25 was received, since at the time of revival of the policy the life assured has made excess payment towards the revival of the policy, the said excess payment was received as per the covering letter by the appellant only and sought for payment of entire premium amount. The District Commission without considering the defence taken by this appellant that they have paid the above said amount as the surrender value of the policy due to lapse and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as awarded by the District Commission. Hence prays for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.

3. Heard from both parties

4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and other documents produced before this Commission, it is not in dispute that one Mr.Altaf Ahmed who is son of the complainant had obtained the policy No.254968589 from the appellant authority for an assured amount of Rs.1.00 lakhs. It was continuously renewed as and when it becomes for renewal. Such being the case, we noticed in the year 2008 the policy premium was not paid due to which it becomes lapsed condition and this appellant had issued a notice for payment of Rs.4,336/- as the premium amount due for revival of the policy. The complainant before the District Commission sworn affidavit that he had paid the premium amount along with the interest, after receipt of the said amount, this appellant had issued a cheque for Rs.7,444.25 with an endorsement that, the life assured had paid an excess amount and the same was returned. Thereafterwards after encashment of the said amount, on 26-1-2009 the life assured died due to heart attack. Being a nominees and legal representative of the life assured, the complainant claimed for an assured amount, but the appellant had declined to settle the claim for the reason that they have sent an amount of Rs.7,444.25 as a surrender value due to lapse of the policy. The said covering letter along with the cheque for Rs.7,444.25 was produced before the District Commission, we noticed this appellant had categorically mentioned the said amount was sent, since it was an excess amount paid by the life assured, when the said amount was sent back as an over payment towards the premium that cannot be considered as the surrender value of the policy due to lapse.

5. The learned advocate for appellant vehemently argued that the said letter was issued to the life assured by oversight, in fact it is towards the surrender value of the policy due to lapse. The life assured had not made any payment towards the dues of premium after the lapse of the policy. Having no option they have paid the above said amount towards the surrender of the policy and submits that there is no any deficiency in service.

6. We noticed here that after obtaining the policy since from 2005, the life assured was regularly paying the premium still 2008. It is very clear, as per the letter dated 10-2-2009, this appellant had issued a cheque along with this letter for Rs.7,444.25 and it was categorically mentioned, it was towards over payment of the premium, when the letter was issued stating over payment towards premium and cheque was also issued and the appellant cannot subsequently say a new ground that the said amount was send as a surrender value. We notice the said amount was issued in the name of life assured after his death. As per sworn affidavit of the complainant before the District Commission, the policy was revived during life time of the policy holder. As such being the case, the ground urged before this commission for setting aside the order is not holds no water.          

7. The District Commission after considering both side evidence and documents produced had arrived for payment of the assured amount to the complainant. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. We do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission. As such the appeal is dismissed and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

The impugned order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the 1^st Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.635/2013 is confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Member                                    Judicial Member

Jrk/-