KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL : 382/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 13.4.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER V.Thilakamma, : APPELLANT Kochuthunkil Veedu, Edakkadu.P.O., Kollam. (By Adv.Manju Prasad) Vs. 1. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., D.O.710600, Tharappoor, Annasai, Chennai. 2. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Kollam. (By Adv.Thomas.P.Jacob) JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 19.3.2009 in OP.503/034 of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint therein was filed by the appellant as complainant against the respondents as opposite parties claiming the policy amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the opposite parties. The Forum below on appreciation of the evidence adduced from either side dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the impugned order the present appeal is preferred. 2. It is the case of the complainant that her husband who was employed in gulf had joined Janatha Personal Accident Policy on 29.1.99, which was sponsored by the opposite parties. The policy save card was issued to the complainant’s husband. As per the condition in the policy, in case the policy holder dies during the subsistence of the policy within 10 years in accident, the nominee will get Rs.5 lakhs. The complainant’s husband sustained injury in an accident in July 2004 at gulf and he was brought to Medical College, Trivandrum for further treatment and on 17.8.04 he died. The complainant produced death certificate and claim form to the 1st opposite party but her claim was repudiated on 14.10.04. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties she filed complaint before the Forum. 3. The opposite parties filed joint version and contended that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties and that the opposite parties entered into a contract of insurance with M/s Dollars India Card Ltd., Chennai and a master policy was issued to the card holders from time to time under the Long Term Janatha Personal Accident Policy . The card holders of this policy were enrolled by the Dollars India Card Ltd., and complainant’s husband was one among them. It is a Group Personal Accident Policy and not an individual policy and the policy period was for 10 years with death cover only. On the basis of the agreement entered between Dollars India Card and as per the master policy insurer had insured the named beneficiaries and issued policy certificate. As per the policy certificate issued in favour of the complainant’s husband the sum assured was Rs.5 lakhs. For that a nominal sum of Rs.280/- was received towards premium. The policy had validity from 29.1.99 to 28.1.2009. As per clause 5 of the condition of policy, the insured has every right to cancel the policy without assigning any reasons and in such case the insurer had to refund the pro-rata premium of the unexpired portion of the risk. Due to the operational constrains and risk, the Regional office of the opposite party asked all the branches to cancel the Janatha Personal Accident Policy with effect from 1.5.03 and to refund the pro-rata premium of the unexpired portion of the risk. Accordingly the policy issued to the complainant’s husband was also cancelled and pro-rata premium for the unexpired period was refunded and the same was received by the complainant. The prayer of the complainant to disburse the insurance amount does not arise as the policy is already cancelled. They further contended that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as M/s Dollars India Card Ltd. is not made a party with whom only this opposite party has privity of contract. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and respondents/opposite parties. The learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant submitted her arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is argued by the learned counsel that the Forum gave undue importance of Clause 5 of the Condition of policy and the policy certificate issued to the insured is quite silent about the alleged clause of the condition of policy. She submitted that a cheque for Rs.161/- sent by the 1st respondent during the time of alleged cancellation of policy was accepted by the wife of the policy holder, thinking that it can be handed over to her husband when he returns. The cheque sent by the 1st respondent was never accepted by the policy holder and the said cheque is produced before the Forum below. According to the complainant she is entitled to get the policy amount and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties argued for the position that the insurer has every right to cancel the policy and accordingly the policy issued to the complainant’s husband was also cancelled and pro-rata premium for the unexpired period was refunded and the same was received by the complainant without protest. The policy was cancelled on 1.5.03 whereas the death of the complainant’s husband was taken place on 17.8.04. So the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit under the policy which was no longer in existence on the date of death of the insured and canvassed for the position that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for both sides and on perusing the records it is noted that as per Condition No.5 of Ext.D1 policy, “ the Company may at any time by notice in writing cancel this policy, provided that the Company shall in that case return to the insured the then last paid premium less a pro-rata part thereof for the portion of the current insurance period which shall have expired.” Ext.D3 series would show that the opposite parties sent notice under certificate of posting to the complainant informing the cancellation of the policy certificate. Ext.P4 is the cheque for Rs.161/- which was received by the complainant. It is noted that the same was sent to the address of the complainant which was given by the complainant himself at the time of taking the policy. The policy was cancelled with effect from 1.5.03 and the wife of the insured received the cheque and the insured did not challenge the cancellation of the policy during his life time. It is also noted that the risk had happened only on 17.8.2004 which is much after the cancellation of the policy. So at the time of the death of the complainant’s husband the policy was not subsisting. Therefore she is not entitled to get the policy amount. The Forum below has correctly appreciated entire evidence on record and came to a just conclusion by finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The present appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP.503/04 of CDRF, Kollam is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs. SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps | 
