O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the husband of complainant i.e. Late Sh. Kishan Pal who was the employee of Assam Rifle under the Govt. of India and was insured under the Policy No.322600/9/857/JPA/002/98/ GROUP Dated 31.03.1998, A No.02481 valid for the period from 31.03.1998 to 30.03.2008 from the O.Ps. On 29.06.2000 the husband of the complainant was kidnapped by some unknown persons and later on murdered for which the FIR under section 147/148/149/302/201/34 I.P.C. was lodged at P.S., Bulandshahar, U.P. It is alleged that the Health Department of U.P. also issued a death certificate on 07.09.2002 regarding the death of the husband of the complainant. It is further alleged that while searching the household articles, the complainant was able to find the papers of aforementioned policy and hence came to know in the month of March, 2007 about the factum of Insurance of her husband. It is alleged that being the nominee and legal heir she has represented before the O.Ps vide her letter dated 07.03.2007 regarding release of the assured amount and other benefits against the said policy to complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant has received a letter dated 15.03.2007 from the O.Ps to the effect that the matter has been taken up and the concerned officers were asked to expedite the matter. On 22.03.2007 complainant was shocked and surprised to receive a letter from the Divisional Manager that the policy was discontinued by the corporate management w.e.f. May, 1999 and a premium of Rs.497 /- was sent to complainant through cheque. It is alleged that the said cheque was never debited from the account of the O.Ps nor was ever credited to the account of the deceased at any point of time. It is further alleged that the said policy cannot be revoked to the disadvantageous of the dependents of the insured especially in a case where neither the consent of the insured was taken nor any intimation was sent to him before revoking the policy. It is alleged that the company could redeem the policy during the lifetime of insured and cannot discontinue it after his death w.e.f. a back date. Complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 11.04.2007 but of no avail. On these facts complainant prays that O.Ps be directed to release the compensation amount of the aforesaid policy to complainant alongwith interest and also to pay the expenses and the cost.
2. O.Ps appeared and filed the written statement. In its written statement O.Ps has not disputed that complainant had taken policy referred to above. It is alleged that the present complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. It is further alleged that the policy holder died on 29.06.2000 and the present claim on behalf of the complainant was lodged in the month of April, 2007. It is alleged that the complainant has not mentioned any cogent reason as to why complainant failed to lodge the claim with the O.Ps immediately or failed to file this case within the period of limitation. It is further alleged that during this policy in question as per the decision taken by the corporate management of the O.Ps, all the long terms Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policies of sum insured above Rs.1,00,000/- whether individual or group including those under any memorandum of understanding or legal agreement issued before May, 1999 were cancelled with immediate effect as per the cancellation clause contained vide condition No.5 of the Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Long Term). It is alleged that the policy of policy holder in the present case was cancelled by O.P-2 and by a registered postal letter dated 07.08.2002 sent under postal registration receipt No.1602 dated 02.08.2002 addressed to the policy holder at his above said last known official postal address, he was informed accordingly regarding the cancellation of the policy and an amount of Rs.497/- from the total premium received was refunded to him for the unexpired period of the insurance coverage by an account payee cheque No.371496 dated 02.08.2002 drawn on United Bank of India, Silchar Branch. It is alleged that the said letter dated 07.08.2002 was duly dispatched by the O.P-2 under the due entry on page No.238 in the dispatch register maintained in the office of O.P-2. It is further alleged that the claim could have been settled had it been lodged during the period immediately after death till the decision of the Management of the O.Ps to cancel the policy. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating all the facts as mentioned in the complaint. She has also filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint and has proved documents exhibited as Ex. CW-1/1 to CW-1/7. On the other hand Shri A. Uma Sambamurthy, Regional Manager has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.Ps (OIC) testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of Ld. Counsel for the O.P-1.
5. The main controversy revolves around the issue as to whether the repudiation of policy by the O.P was justified or not. Admittedly the insurance policy was issued in favour of husband of complainant from 31.03.1998 to 30.03.1999. According to complainant the insured died in 2000 and the present complaint was filed in 2007. One of the preliminary objections raised on behalf of O.P is that the complaint is time barred. Obviously the cause of action arose in 2000 when the insured was alleged to have been murdered and the complaint was filed in 2007. The complainant has not been successful in making out a sufficient cause for not moving the court within limitation. Admittedly the cause of action arose on 2000 and the complaint should have been filed in 2002 whereas the same has been filed in 2007, much after expiry of limitation. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled Richard Raja Singh Vs. Ford Motor Company Ltd. IV 2014 CPJ 509 (NC), held that complaint under section 24A should be filed within 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. It has been further held that neither service of notice nor response thereto gave rise to any fresh cause of action and that provision of section 24A of the Act being mandatory and rather pre-emptor in nature. In view of the aforesaid authority of Hon’ble National Commission it becomes crystal clear that the provisions of section 24A of Consumer Protection Act as should construed strictly.
6. Now let us see the scope of claim of complainant on merits. The repudiation of the claim appears to have been preceded on the terms and conditions of the policy which have been laid down on the reverse page of the policy. Clause 5 of the conditions authorized company to cancel the policy at any time by notice in writing, provided the company returned to the insured the last paid premium on last known addressed registered in the company and notice shall be deemed to have been received by the insured at the time when the same would be delivered in the ordinary course of posts. It has been categorically stated in the written statement that the O.P relying on the aforesaid clause cancelled the policy by sending notice through registered postal letter dated 07.08.2009 vide receipt No.1602 dated 02.08.2002 addressed to the insured along with an amount of Rs.497/- being the premium receipt which was refunded to him. It is now well settled law that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which were in the knowledge of the insured at the time of execution of the policy had to be given effected to. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Export Credit Guarntee Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons International 2013 STPL (Web) 36 SC, held as under:
“It is a settled legal proposition that while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any word. It is also well settled, that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavor of the court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the parties. (Vide: M/s/ Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010)10 SCC 567).”
“Thus, it is not permissible for the court to substitute the terms of the contract itself, under the grab of construing terms incorporated in the agreement of insurance. No exception can be made on the ground of equity. The liberal attitude adopted by the court, by way of which it interferes in the terms of an insurance agreement, is not permitted. The same must certainly not be extended to the extent of substituting words that were never intended to form a part of the agreement.”
7. Keeping in view of the discussion stated above the complaint is wholly devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed, firstly, because it was time barred and secondly due to its cancelation by O.P in accordance with terms and conditions of the policy.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 24th day of May, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
