THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
APPEAL NO.1338/2018
The Life Insurance Corporation
of India, Branch office-II … Appellant/s
Jeevan Jyothi,
Desai Cross, Club Road,
Hubli-580020
Represented by its
Authorized Representative
Manager (Legal & HPF)
LIC of India, Divisional Office-1,
Jayachamaraj Road
Bengaluru-560 092
(By Sri/Smt. Hanumanthappa N.Kasal, Adv.,)
V/s
Smt.Priya
W/o late S.Anand, A/a 44 years,
Occ. Household work … Respondent/s
R/o. H.No.54, Ramanatha Nilaya,
Udaya Nagar, Bengeri
Hubli-580023 District: Dharwad
(By Sri/Smt.Narase Gowda, Adv.,)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.197/2017 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Dharwad which directed this appellant to pay sum assured amount of Rs.3,00,000-00 along with 8% interest per annum from the date of rejection of claim and also directed to pay Rs.5,000-00 towards compensation and litigation cost and submits that the husband of complainant one Sri.S.Anand had obtained two insurance policies from this appellant company. One policy bearing no.636457565 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000-00 in the year 2010 and another policy bearing no.636572613 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000-00 in the year 2014. The complainant’s husband paying monthly premium towards these policies under the salary deduction. Such being the case, the complainant’s husband died on 7-4-2016 due to heart attack. Being the nominee under the policies, the complainant claimed assured amount, but the Opposite Party has settled the claim under the first policy bearing No.636457565 to the tune of Rs.5,00,000-00 and rejected the claim under another policy bearing no.636572613 for assured amount of Rs.3,00,000-00, for the reason that, the policy was stood under the lapsed condition, due to non-payment of one month premium and rejected the claim, against which, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency of service and claimed for assured amount. The District Consumer Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay the assured amount of Rs.3,00,000-00 under the policy no.636572613 along with 8% interest per annum against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that they have settled the claim of complainant Rs.5,00,000-00 under the policy bearing no.636457565 which was obtained in the year 2010 as there is no any due and the policy was in force as on the date of death of husband of complainant. Whereas as on the date of death of the husband of complainant, the second policy was in lapsed condition due to non-payment of premium in the month of March 2016 and the grace period was expired on 15-4-2016 and claim under this policy was declined to pay the assured amount due to non-payment of premium and hence submits that there is no any deficiency of service. In spite of that the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint without any reasons, hence prayed to set-aside the order.
3. On going through the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, we noticed here that, there is no dispute that the appellant has settled the claim to the tune of Rs.5,00,000-00 under policy no.636457565 which was insured in the year 2010 and rejected the claim under another policy No.636572613 which was insured in the year 2014 for non-payment of one premium for the month of March-2016. We noticed here that grace period for payment of premium is on 15-4-2016, the complainant’s husband died on 7-4-2016 i.e. within the grace period, for which the Opposite Party Company /appellant had rejected the claim holding that the policy was under lapsed condition. We consider the rejection of claim for an amount of Rs.3,00,000-00 under the policy bearing no. 636572613 for non-payment of one month premium due amounts to deficiency of service. There is no dispute raised by the appellant/Opposite Party with respect to the payment of previous premium from the date of obtaining the policy. The Opposite Party could have settled the claim by receiving non-paid premium at the time of payment of assured amount but instead of that, the Opposite Party have rejected the claim on flimsy ground. Merely non-payment of one month premium does not amounts to lapse of policy. If the husband of complainant lived as on the date of payment, he would have paid non-paid premium on the next month. The District Consumer Commission has rightly appreciated the allegations made by the complainant and allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay assured amount along with 8% interest per annum. We found there is no any irregularity in the order passed by the District Consumer Commission. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member. Judicial Member.
