Tripura

StateCommission

A/26/2016

Life Insurance Corporation of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Golapi Debbarma - Opp.Party(s)

P. K. Debnath

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

 

Case No.A.26.2016

 

 

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Represented by Chief Manager, LICI, Br.I,

Paradise Chowmuhani,

Agartala, West Tripura,

Constituted Attorney on behalf of LICI.

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

 

 

1. Smt. Golapi Debbarma,

W/o Late Padha @ Padma Kr. Debbarma,

Vill-Rajchantaipara, P.O. Ram Chandra Nagar,

P.S. Bodhjungnagar, District - West Tripura

 

 

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                       Mr. Prahlad Kumar Debnath, Adv.

For the Respondent:                Mr. Debaloy Bhattacharya, Adv.

Date of Hearing and Delivery of Judgment: 10.03.2017.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by Chief Manager, LICI, Branch-I, Paradise Chowmuhani, Agartala (who was the opposite party no.1 before the District Forum) against the judgment dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No. C.C. 60 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay the respondent-petitioner, nominee of the deceased Padma Kumar Debbarma all death benefits of the Bima Gold Policy No.4939755136 considering the policy not lapsed and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- in addition to death benefits of the policy to the respondent-petitioner as compensation. All the benefits have to be paid within two months from the date of judgment along with compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/-. If not paid within the aforesaid period, it will carry interest @9% per annum.       

2. Admitted facts of the case are that, the husband of the petitioner Padma Kumar Debbarma had taken an insurance Bima Gold Policy being No.493755136 dated 10.01.2013 from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC/Insurance Company/opposite party no.1) for an insured sum of Rs.2 lacs and the respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) was nominee in the said policy. Her husband paid all premium till his accidental death. After the death of her husband, the petitioner claimed the benefits of the aforesaid Bima Gold Policy with sum assured. But the opposite party Insurance Company denied the benefits of the said policy on the ground that the policy was lapsed as the premium was not paid in due time, though, according to the petitioner, premium was paid till death of her husband. According to her, non-payment of benefits of the insurance policy is nothing but deficiency of service of the opposite party Insurance Company and as such, she was deprived of. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum claiming compensation for Rs.4 lacs from the opposite party Insurance Company.
3. Opposite party-Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the last premium payable in the month of July was not paid by the deceased husband of the petitioner. So, the policy was lapsed. As the policy was lapsed, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit on the lapsed policy.
4. Petitioner produced FIR, Charge sheet, Death Certificate of her deceased husband Padma Kr. Debbarma, Money receipt, Claim letter, Status Report of the Policy, letters, Premium receipts, which are exhibited and marked as Exhibit-1 series. She has also examined herself as P.W.1.
5. On the other hand, the opposite party produced some documents, which are exhibited on admission by the petitioner, but the Insurance Company did not examine any witness in support of their contention.
6. On the basis of the evidence of the petitioner and the documents exhibited, the Ld. District Forum formulated following two points for deciding the complaint case which are as follows:-

1. Whether the Bima Gold Policy purchased by the husband of the petitioner was lapsed?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the policy and any other amount as compensation for deficiency of service?

7.   After considering the evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum decided the above two points in favour of the petitioner and allowing the complaint case directed the Insurance Company as stated (supra). Being aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard Mr. Prahlad Kumar Debnath, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-opposite party no.1 Insurance Company as well as Mr. Debaloy Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner.
9. Mr. Debnath, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment of the District Forum would contend that the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment on the basis of presumption that the deceased husband of the petitioner had paid the amount of premium through the agent in time and the agent might have paid the same with some delay. Though the petitioner in her complaint petition nowhere stated that the premium of the policy was deposited by the agent of the Insurance Company. He further submits that though the actual Bima Gold Policy Number of the deceased petitioner is 493755136, but the Ld. District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay all death benefits of Bima Gold Policy No.4939755136 considering the fact that the policy was not lapsed, although in the complaint case, the aforesaid policy was not the subject matter of the case. He also contends that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harshad J. Shah & Anr. Vs LIC of India & Others, (1997) 5 SCC 64, the agent was not authorized to collect the premium on behalf of the LIC.
10. Mr. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel submits that the opposite party Insurance Company did not examine any witness in support of their written statement. Thus, the written statement cannot be considered as an evidence. He further submits that admittedly, LIC Agent namely, Smt. Jari Debbarma was not examined either by the petitioner or by the Insurance Company. In view of that, the impugned judgment of the Ld. District Forum is obviously a presumptive one.
11. We have considered the evidence on record, impugned judgment as well as the submission of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties before us. At this appellate stage, the Insurance Company produced some documents, but not the document regarding the Bima Gold Policy No.493755136 in particular as to who deposited the premium of the aforesaid policy. The documents submitted by the LIC are returned to them. We have gone through the judgment of Harshad J. Shah & Anr. (supra) from which, it appears that the agents are not totally barred from collecting and remitting the renewal premiums under the policy as in the proviso of Clause 4 of Regulation 8, it is specifically mentioned “Provided that an agent may be authorised by the Corporation to collect and remit renewal premiums under policies on such conditions as may be specified.” It is not clear from the documents as exhibited as to whether the Agent of the LIC namely, Jari Debbarma was authorized to collect the premium on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation or not. Thus, it would be proper to examine the LIC Agent to find out as to who actually deposited the premium on 05.07.2014. More so, in the direction part, the Ld. District Forum mentioned a wrong policy number, which was not the subject matter in the case. From the evidence, we are not getting anything on the basis of what, the Ld. District Forum came to the conclusion that the premium of the deceased husband of the petitioner was deposited by the LIC agent.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Ld. District Forum to decide the case afresh from the stage of evidence so that both the parties can get opportunity to adduce the evidence in support of their respective case. Ld. District Forum is directed to issue notice upon the parties after receipt of the record with the above direction, the appeal is partly allowed.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura