Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 24-06-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur in CC/35/2015, whereof the complaint case has been allowed against the Appellant Insurance Company.

In short, case of the Complainant was that notwithstanding she paid all the annual premiums in respect of the subject insurance policy, the OP No. 1 did not deposit the same to the OP No. 2 Insurance Company and although she was handed over two receipts, the OP No. 2 disowned the same being that of theirs.  Complaint lodged in this regard being not resolved, the complaint case was filed.

Case of the OP No. 1, on the other hand, was that, he was present at the time of opening the policy and signed the proposal form as a witness.  However, he had no knowledge whether the Complainant paid any subsequent premium or not.

OP No. 2, in its WV submitted that the OP No. 1 was not associated with it and the company never authorized him to collect premium from policyholders of the company.  Therefore, if the OP No. 1 indulged in any sort of unfair trade practice, as alleged, the company cannot be held responsible for the same.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocates for the parties were heard in the matter and documents on record carefully gone through.

It appears from the proposal form that the Respondent No. 2 mentioned his residential address being the mailing address of the policyholder.  No satisfactory explanation is given by the Respondent No. 2 as to why he did so.  Because of her poor knowledge about English language, Respondent No. 1 was visibly not in a position to detect the mala fide act of the Respondent No. 2.

It is also not explained by the Respondent No. 2 why did he volunteer to fill up the proposal form instead of the authorized agent of the Insurance Company. 

It appears that the Respondent No. 2 happened to be an employee of the medicine shop being owned by the husband of the Respondent No. 1 and left the job for some obscure reasons.  Therefore, the possibility of his personal grudge against the family of the Respondent No. 1 cannot be ruled out. 

It also appears that the Respondent No. 1 sent Advocate’s notice to the Respondent No. 2 regarding the dispute.  However, there is nothing to show that the latter refuted the allegation by sending counter letter.

Circumstantial evidence does raise finger against the Respondent No. 2.  The Ld. District Forum though found fault with the Appellant for not sending notice to the Respondent No. 1 or asking her to revive the policy, in terms of Sec. 50(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938, there is no need to send notice of options available to the assured on the lapsing of a policy, if these are set forth in the policy.    In this regard, it is contended by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that since policy contract had explicitly laid down terms regarding policy lapse and responsibilities of the policyholder therein as per Sec. 50 of the 1938 Act, Company had no obligation to send any notice to the Respondent No. 1.  We are fully at one with such contention of the Appellant.

Both the Appellant  as well as the Respondent No. 2 stoutly denied that the latter was associated with the Appellant company in any official capacity.  Documents on record also do not reveal any such identity of the Respondent No. 2.  In such circumstances, asking the Appellant to pay Rs. 40,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 along with other relief was akin to  rob Peter to pay Paul which cannot be allowed under any circumstances.

Accordingly, we cannot endorse the impugned order and deem it fit and proper to modify the same for ends of justice.

The Appeal, accordingly, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondents.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that instead of the Appellant, the decreetal amount shall be paid by the Respondent No. 2.