KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 869/02

JUDGMENT DATED.29.02.08

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER

1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India,

Aban Towers, Pathanamthitta.

2. The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,                           : APPELLANTS

Nagampadam, Kurian Uthup Road,

Kottayam.

3.The Zonal Manager, LIC of India,

Zonal Office, Anna Salai, Chennai

(By Adv.S.S.Kalkura & Others)

Vs

Prasanna Rajan

Thanniparackkal Veedu,

Mannarkulanji (P.O)                                         : RESPONDENT

Mylapra, pathanamthitta.

(By Adv.S.Sankaranarayana Iyer & Others)

JUDGMENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER

This appeal is filed against the order dated.23.10.02 of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.407/01. The complaint in the OP.407/01 was filed by the respondent herein as the complainant against the appellants as opposite parties. The Forum directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.35,546/- with 12% interest from 26.8.2000 till 8.5.01 and thereafter 6% interest till realization of the amount and also Rs.1000/- as costs to the complainant.

2. The fact of the case are that the complainant’s husband took an insurance policy with the opposite party. The policy is bearing No.390754477 called “Jeevan Sanchay Plan” and its validity start from 14.1.99. As per conditions in the policy, the policy holder has to remit Rs.5,530/- as quarterly premium. He remitted proposal deposit on 13.1.99. Thereafter Rs.5,530/- was remitted as premium on 4.5.99. On 5.4.2000 Rs.16,959/- was remitted. Lastly on 26.8.2000 Rs.10,926.50 was remitted. But after that the complainant’s husband could not remit the premium and was under treatment from 5.5.01 to 7.5.01 at Muthoot Hospital, Kozhencherry and thereafter admitted at Medical College Kottayam on 7.5.01 and died on 8.5.01. Since the deceased had remitted Rs.35,545.50 towards policy subscription the complainant approached the opposite party to get the policy amount and her claim was repudiated by the opposite parties. Thereafter she filed a complaint before the Forum claiming Rs.35,545.50 with interest and also for insurance amount plus bonus from the opposite parties.

3. The opposite parties filed version contending that the petition is not maintainable and they admitted the issuance of policy for Rs.2 lakh with effect from 14.1.99. According to the opposite parties the insured remitted premium for 1¾ years and thereafter discontinued the payment. Premium was due from 14.10.2000 onwards and the policy was in a lapsed condition, at the time of the death of the insured, due to the non payment of the quarterly premium. On 26.8.2000 the complainant paid premium for 4/00 and 7/00. But there was no payment after that. Because of the failure on the part of the policy holder to remit the premium, in time the policy has lapsed at the time of the death of the insured.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P8 and testimony of DW1.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent and perused the records. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued on the basis of the ground urged in the memorandum of appeal. According to the appellants, quarterly premiums were paid up to July 2000 and discontinued thereafter. The next premium payable was on 14.10.2000. Thus, the policy was in force till 14.10.2000. It is not in dispute that the quarterly premium falling due on 14.10.2000 was not paid even within the grace period up to 14.11.2000. The date of commencement of the policy is from 14.1.99. Therefore premium will be payable in January, April, July and October of every year. Admittedly last premium was paid on 26.8.2000 and thereafter due to financial difficulties the premium could not be paid. On 8.5.01 the complainant’s husband died and on the date of death of the life assured the policy was in a lapsed condition.

6. Condition No.4 of the policy deals with the exceptions to lapsing of the policy. The relevant provision in the aforesaid condition No.4 reads as follows:

“If after at least three full years premiums have been paid in respect of this policy any subsequent premium be not duly paid, this policy shall not be wholly void, but shall subsist as a paid-up policy for a reduced sum payable on the Date of Maturity or at the Life Assured’s prior death”.

7. Here premium is paid only for 1¾ years and thereafter discontinued the payment. So the exception clause as quoted above would not come to the rescue of the complainant/respondent. The revival clause contained in the policy of insurance also is not applicable in this case because this clause will come into play only if the assured is alive. All these aspects have been totally ignored by the District Forum while allowing the complaint in part.

In the result this appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Forum is set aside. The complaint will stands dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties of this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs.

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

R.AV