Haryana

StateCommission

A/954/2015

LIFE INSURANCE CORP.OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PINKY - Opp.Party(s)

NITESH SINGHI

02 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      954 of 2015

Date of Institution:      29.10.2015

Date of Decision :       02.02.2016

 

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Opposite Radio Station, Subash Road, Rohtak, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Smt. Pinki wife of late Rajesh Kumar son of Ishwar Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Priya Singh, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Mandeep Kumar-representative of respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 9^th September, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.526 of 2012.

2.      Rajesh(since deceased)-husband of Pinki-complainant/ respondent, purchased Life Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1 from Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) on October 29^th, 2008 with Double Accident Benefits (DAB). The sum assured was Rs.1,10,000/-. The premium payable was half yearly. Life Assured defaulted the payment of premium which was due on October 28^th, 2010. The life assured met with an accident on December 15, 2010 in the area of Julana, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Daily Dairy Report Exhibit C-4 was lodged with the Police of Police Station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. He was admitted in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The premium of the policy which was due in October, 2010, was paid on December 24^th, 2010. The life assured died on December 25^th, 2010 due to the injuries suffered by him in the aforesaid accident. The respondent being the nominee of the deceased, filed claim with the LIC and the LIC paid Rs.1,19,306/- to the respondent vide cheque No.618953 dated 28^th May, 2011; however denied the benefits of DAB (Double Accident Benefit). The respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The LIC contested complaint by filing reply taking plea that since on the date of accident, the policy was lying lapsed, therefore, the respondent was not entitled for the benefit of DAB.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum accepted complaint directing the LIC as under:-

“….it is directed that opposite party shall pay the accident claim of policy number 176814492 with other benefits under the policy (if any) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 25.09.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay an amount of Rs2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision.”

5.      Learned counsel for the LIC has assailed the order of the District Forum taking plea that on the date of accident i.e. 15.12.2010, the policy was lying in lapsed condition and by acceptance of premium on 24.12.2010, the benefit of DAB cannot be extended, therefore, the LIC rightly denied the DAB.

6.      The contention raised is not tenable. The date of issuance of policy is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the premium payable on 28.10.2010 was not paid in time and it was paid on 24.12.2010 alongwith penalty payable for the delayed payment, which the LIC accepted. Once the LIC accepted the premium and treating the policy to have been revived paid the assured sum alongwith interest i.e. Rs.1,19,306/-, therefore, it cannot deny the benefit of other terms of the policy i.e. DAB. If the policy has been revived, it has to be taken to have been revived for all intents and purposes. Therefore, when the LIC itself treated the policy to have been revived, it cannot deny the benefit under Clause 10.2(b) Double Accident Benefit. So, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 02.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL