1.      Heard Mr. Bharat Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Maruf Khan, Advocate, for the respondent. 

2.      Aforementioned revision has been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, dated 19.11.2014, passed in F.A. No.577 of 2014 (arising out of order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagur, dated 13.05.2014, passed in Consumer Complaint No.87 of 2012) by which the complaint was allowed for Rs.210000/- and cost of Rs.1500/- and the appeal has been dismissed. 

3.      Piyush Mathur (the respondent) filed Consumer Complaint No.87 of 2012, for directing SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. (the petitioner) to pay (i) Rs.210000/-as the insurance claim, (ii) Rs.20000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) Rs.10000/- as cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances.

4.      The complainant stated that Late Sukhdev Narain Mathur (the father of the complainant) submitted proposal form bearing No.49AB434116 on 27.04.2011 for obtaining life insurance policy for a sum of Rs.210000/- and deposited cheque No.811215 dated 19.04.2011 of Rs.30000/- on the same day with the opposite party. The opposite party accepted the premium and issued Policy No.49004227304, in which the complainant was nominee. Sukhdev Narain Mathur expired on 05.05.2011. The complainant being nominee in the policy, applied for insurance claim, which was rejected by the opposite party vide letter dated 01.10.2011, on the ground that policy had commenced w.e.f. 09.05.2011. On the allegations that the policy commenced on the date when the premium was accepted along with proposal form and there was deficiency in service, this complaint was filed.    

5.      The petitioner filed their written reply on 23.04.2012 and contested the complaint. It has been stated that after receiving proposal form No.49AB434116 on 27.04.2011, a medical examination report was called for. Medical examination was done on 02.05.2011 and Medical Examination Report was received on 06.05.2011. Then the papers were forwarded to competent authority and who accepted the proposal on 09.05.2011 and Policy No.49004227304 was issued on 11.05.2011. Date of commencement of the policy was 09.05.2011, while Sukhdev Narain Mathur expired on 05.05.2011. The date of death was prior to the date of commencement of the policy, therefore the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 01.10.2011 and the amount of the premium was returned to the complainant vide cheque No.501481 dated 28.09.2011. The preliminary objections relating to maintainability of the complaint were also raised.        

6.      District Forum, after hearing the parties, by judgment dated 13.05.2014, held that proposal form along with cheque of premium of Rs.30000/- was submitted on 27.04.2011. Medical Examination Report was submitted on 02.05.2011. Premium was en-cashed on 03.05.2011. As such all the formalities for issuance of insurance policy was completed on 03.05.2011, while death occurred on 05.05.2011. The claim was illegally repudiated. On these findings the complaint was allowed. The petitioner filed First Appeal No.577 of 2014, from the aforesaid order. State Commission, by judgment dated 19.11.2014, relying upon the judgment of this Commission in LIC Vs. C.P. Sinha, (2012) 4 CPR (NC) 494, held that date of commencement of policy would be the date of acceptance of the premium, which has occurred prior to the death of Sukhdev Narain Mathur. District Forum has not committed any illegality. On these findings, the appeal has been dismissed. Hence this revision has been filed.

7.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. There is no dispute that after receiving proposal form No.49AB434116 on 27.04.2011, a medical examination report was called for. Medical examination was done on 02.05.2011. The cheque relating to premium was en-cashed on 03.05.2011. Medical Examination Report was received on 06.05.2011. Then the proposal was sent to the competent authority, who accepted it on 09.05.2011 and Policy No.49004227304 was issued on 11.05.2011, while Sukhdev Narain Mathur died on 05.05.2011.

8.      Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba, AIR 1984 SC 1014, held that mere presentation of policy document or receipt and retention of premium does not amount to acceptance of the proposal. In the insurance matter, the acceptance of the proposal has to be done by the competent authority. Date of commencement of the policy would be the date when the proposal was accepted by the competent authority. In the present case, the proposal was accepted on 09.05.2011, while Sukhdev Narain Mathur expired on 05.05.2011, i.e. before commencement of policy. The petitioner did not commit any illegality in repudiating the claim vide letter dated 01.10.2011 and returning the amount of the premium to the complainant vide cheque No.501481 dated 28.09.2011. So far as judgment of this Commission in LIC Vs. C.P. Sinha, (2012) 4 CPR (NC) 494, is concerned, in this case, delay of 2 months 25 days was caused in acceptance of the proposal. In the present case, Medical Examination Report was received on 06.05.2011, i.e. after death as such this case law has been wrongly relied upon. It is very unfortunate that although judgment of Supreme Court was noticed by State Commission but it was very conveniently ignored. 

ORDER

  In view of the aforesaid discussions, the revision is allowed the orders of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, dated 19.11.2014, passed in F.A. No.577 of 2014 and District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagur, dated 13.05.2014, passed in Consumer Complaint No.87 of 2012 are set aside. Consumer Complaint No.87 of 2012 is dismissed.