KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APEAL NO.206/08
JUDGMENT DATED 6.11.2010
PRESENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Branch Manager
LIC of India,
S.Bathry, Wayanad. -- APPELLANT (By Adv.G.S.kalkura)
Vs.
P.T.Padmanabhan,
Palliyathody House, -- RESPONDENT
Kallingara, Thazhathoor Post,
Cheeral.
(By Adv.P.T.Divakaran & Ors.)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant was the opposite party and respondent was the complainant in CC.68/07 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta. The aforesaid complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in refusing the right of the complainant to get the lapsed policy revived. The opposite party entered appearance and filed their written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that they have got every right to refuse the request for getting the lapsed policy revived. It is further contended that the complainant was found not fit for getting the lapsed policy revived. Thus, the opposite party justified their action in not reviving the lapsed policy.
2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Manager of LIC, Calicut was examined as OPW1. Exts.A1 to A10 & B1 to B7 documents were also marked on the side of the parties to the said complaint. On an appreciation of the evidence of record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 20th May 2008 directing the opposite party to revive the policy No.791174578 with the terms and conditions followed by the opposite party in reviving lapsed policy. It is against the said order the present appeal is filed.
3. We heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that LIC has got amble right and authority to refuse revival of the policy and that the respondent/complainant, the holder of the lapsed policy has no right to get the lapsed policy revived. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He also relied on the conditions incorporated in the policy giving right of revival of the discontinued policy. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant was holder of the life policy No. 791174578. The said policy was taken in the year 1995 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Admittedly, the said policy became a lapsed policy because of the failure on the part of the complainant/life assured to pay the premium for the said policy. The said policy became a lapsed policy in the year 2002. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the discontinued/lapsed policy can be revived within 5 years from the date of the first unpaid premium. The respondent/complainant submitted the revival application within the stipulated time with necessary fee. He had also undergone medical examination by the panel Doctor of LIC and he produced the revival application with the recommendation of the panel Doctor of LIC. He also remitted the required fee including the premium for getting the policy revived. But, the appellant/opposite party issued B3 repudiation letter dated 9.4.05 expressing their intention not to revive the lapsed policy. There is only a vague statement in B3 letter that the Medical references of the LIC refused revival of the policy. But, the appellant/opposite party LIC miserably failed in establishing the fact that the Medical Reference of LIC were not interested in getting the lapsed policy revived. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence in support of their case that the respondent/complainant was not fit for getting the lapsed policy revived. On the other hand, the revival application with the medical recommendation would show that the complainant is medically fit for getting the lapsed policy revived. Thus, the respondent/complainant has got the right to get the lapsed policy revived.
6. The request made by the respondent/complainant is based on the condition incorporated in the life policy, which was issued in the name of the complainant in the year 1995. It is to be born in mind that parties to the contract of insurance are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the contract of insurance would demand the opposite party/LIC to revive the policy, if the life assured is still having the insurability. In the present case, the evidence available on record would show that the respondent/complainant was having the insurability to get the lapsed policy revived on the date on which the revival application was submitted. So, the Forum below is perfectly justified in directing the appellant/ opposite party to revive the lapsed policy.
7. No material prejudice will be caused to the appellant/opposite party in reviving the said lapsed policy. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the disputed policy will be getting matured in the year 2013. It was not just or fair on the part of the appellant/opposite party LIC in repudiating the request of the respondent/complainant to get the lapsed policy revived. We do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The present appeal deserves nothing but dismissal. Hence we do so.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
