DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 278 of 21-10-2008<br /> Decided on : 28-05-2009 <br /> <br /> Boota Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o H. No. 3894, Neeta Street, Mehna Chowk, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Turner Morrison Building, G.N. Vaidya Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 023 through its M.D.<br /> 2.SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit No. 1&2, Third Floor, First Mall, Mall Road, Ludhiana 141 001.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SH. GEORGE, PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> 1. Sh. Boota Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations that he purchased an Insurance policy from the opposite parties for a term of 20 years for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- after getting all the requisite formalities completed including his medical etc., He continued to pay regularly the amount of premium fixed with the agent of the opposite parties against proper receipt and never committed any default, but the opposite parties in an illegal and arbitrary manner lapsed the policy on the ground of non-payment of premium amount in time which allegation is totally false. In fact the complainant has been regularly paying the amount of installments well within time at Bathinda, through the agent of the opposite parties and it is the agent of the opposite parties who did not deposit the amount with them, for which he cannot be penalised. He came to know that his policy has been wrongly lapsed by the opposite parties. He issued letters dated 05-03-2008 and 14-03-2008 seeking clarification from them for lapsing his policy without any sufficient cause and reason. However, the opposite parties in a arbitrary way issued a letter dated 3rd April, 2008 informing him that his policy has been lapsed and an amount of Rs. 34,578/- has been refunded to him through Cheque No. 443562 dated 31-03-2008. He approached the opposite parties and requested for revival of his policy as there was no default on his part. He also produced copies of the receipts before the opposite parties, but they instead of reviving the policy, issued letter dated 17th May, 2008, directing him to submit a duly filled in declaration of good health although he had already furnished a medical report at the time of taking policy and, therefore, there was no question for him to furnish a fresh declaration of good health, but the opposite parties had put pressure on him and refused to revive his Insurance policy and in an illegal way, refunded an amount of Rs. 34,578/- to the complainant whereas he has already deposited an amount of Rs. 41,152/- with the opposite parties. He claimed that he is entitled tor total amount of Rs. 41,152/- alongwith upto date interest @ 18% P.A. till the date of refund. He has also claimed an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, botheration, harassment, humiliation, inconvenience etc., and an amount of Rs. 3300/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The allegations contested by the opposite parties by raising preliminary objections that; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute; complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has failed to pay his renewal premium within grace period from 13th January, 2006 onwards which resulted in the lapsation of his policy; the complainant has not complied with the conditions of revival of the policy as mentioned in schedule part III of terms and conditions under para 3 i.e. :<br /> “ A lapsed policy may be revived during the life time of the Life Assured within a period of 5 years from the due date of first unpaid premium and before the premium ceasing date, on submission of evidence of health satisfactory to the Company and payment of arrears of premium with interest at the rate specified in clause 1(b)(ii) on this part above. The company however reserves the right to accept or reject the revival of a discontinued policy. The revival of a policy will be effective only after the same is communicated by the Company.” <br /> On merits, the allegations made in the complaint were not admitted as correct. In nut-shell, the opposite parties offered to revive the lapsed Insurance policy of the complainant subject to his full-filling the terms and conditions for revival of a lapsed policy and complying with the request of the company to submit evidence of health satisfactory certificate and payment of arrears of premium with interest.<br /> 3. The complainant in order to prove his assertion, has brought on record in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of letter dated 09-02-2005 Ex. C-2, copy of first premium receipt he paid Ex. C-3, copies of customer copy receipts Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-8, photocopies of letters dated 05-03-2008, 14-03-2009, 03-04-2008 and 31-03-2008 Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-12.<br /> 4. The opposite parties in order to controvert the evidence of the complainant, brought in their evidence affidavit of Sh. V. Srinivas Ex. R-6, copy of order dated 21-05-2008 Ex. R-1, copies of proposal form and Insurance policy Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3 respectively and photocopies of letters dated 12-02-2008 and 30-04-2009 Ex. R-4 & Ex. R-5 respectively.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 6. To narrow down the controversy between the parties during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant vehementally urged that he is ready to make payment of arrears of the premium from the date it is lapsed alognwith interest as per terms and conditions of the Insurance company. However, he has urged that the complainant was not at fault. He has paid the premium amount regularly and punctually to the agent of the opposite parties in time, but the agent has not deposited the same with the opposite parties and, therefore, he was not at fault and order of lapsing his policy on the part of the opposite parties was void and illegal. He also urged that since he has submitted his medical certificate at the time of securing his Insurance policy and, therefore, the demand of the opposite parties for further health certificate for the revival of his Insurance policy is untenable and is not binding on him.<br /> 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties urged that the opposite parties are ready to revive the Insurance policy of the complainant provided the complainant comply with the terms and conditions as contained in schedule part III of the SBI Life Insurance Scheme. The learned counsel also urged that payment of any premium paid to any agent of the Insurance company is not at all a payment received by the Insurance company so as to constitute discharge of liability of the insured.<br /> 8. We have considered the rival contentions of both the counsel for the parties.<br /> 9. The main contention of the complainant is that he is ready for getting revival of his Insurance policy by paying all the due charges alongwith interest, but he is not ready to furnish any fresh health certificate. We have perused condition No. 3 of schedule part III : terms and conditions of the SBI Life Insurance scheme which reads as under “<br /> “3. Revival of the policy : <br /> A lapsed policy may be revived during the life time of the Life Assured within a period of 5 years from the due date of first unpaid premium and before the premium ceasing date, on submission of evidence of health satisfactory to the Company and payment of arrears of premium with interest at the rate specified in clause 1(b)(ii) on this part above. The company however reserves the right to accept or reject the revival of a discontinued policy. The revival of a policy will be effective only after the same is communicated by the Company.” <br /> 10. The perusal of condition No. 3 as referred to above, reveals that it is incumbent and necessary for the insured to submit the evidence of health satisfactory to the company before the company passes an order of revival of the lapsed policy. As to why the complainant is adamant for not submitting evidence of his satisfactory health for the revival of his Insurance policy, has not been answered by the counsel for the complainant despite our repeated queries put to the learned counsel during the course of arguments, As far as the payment of premium as alleged on behalf of the complainant had been paid to the agent of the opposite parties is concerned, that does not amount to due payment. A similar question had arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Harshad J. Shah & Another Vs. L.I.C. Of India & Ors III(1997) CPJ 9 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has very clearly held <br /> “that agent have no express/implied authority to receive premium on behalf of LIC. The payment of premium in respect of Life Insurance Policy by insured to general agent of L.I.C. Cannot be regarded as payment of insurer so as to constitute discharge of liability of insured.”<br /> 11. In view of the clear position of law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case referred to ibid, the stand taken by the complainant that he continued to make payment of his premium to an gent of the Insurance company, but he did not further deposited the premium amount with the Insurance company and, therefore, he has discharged his liabilities for payment of Insurance premium, appears to be without any merit. <br /> 12. Moreover, if the complainant has paid the premium to an agent of the opposite parties, as to why he has not been impleaded as party to the present complaint and why his name and full address have not been disclosed even in his complaint. Even receipts of payment to the alleged agent, which are placed on record as Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-8, do not reveal the full name and address and full identity of such agent. Moreover, these receipts do not pertain to the receipt of premium of an Insurance policy rather these receipts are “provisional acknowledgement of the proposal form” wherein it has been mentioned that “A formal stamped receipt for the premium amount will be issued separately.” meaning thereby that the agent had only acknowledged the receipt of an Insurance proposal form alongwith a cheque/draft as per particulars for the issuance of new policy. These receipts, as such, do not help in any way to the contention of the complainant that he paid the premium amount to an agent of the opposite parties and has discharged his liability of payment of premium as insured.<br /> 13. No other point was urged before us on behalf of any of the parties.<br /> 12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 13. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 28-05-2009 (Amarjeet Paul) (Dr. Phulinder Preet) (George)<br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />