Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/489

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUSEELA - Opp.Party(s)

B KRISHNAKUMAR

24 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.489/14

JUDGMENT DATED:24.05.2016

 

PRESENT:

 

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI                           : PRESIDENT

 

SHRI. V.V. JOSE                                                                   : MEMBER

 

1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd,

   ICICI Prulife Towers,

   1089, Appa sahib Maratha Marg,

    Prebhadevi, Mumbai-400 025.

         

   Also at:                                                              -        Appellant

    ICICI Prudential  Life Insurance Co.Ltd,

    Karimpanal Arcade building,

    East Fort , Thiruvananthapuram.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Anil Prasad)

 

                           Vs.

1. Suseela, D/o.Saraswathy,

   TC 14/2030, Vanrose Junction                  

    Palayam , Thiruvananthapuram.

 

2. Akash G.Krishnan,  S/o.Krishnakumar,

    TC 14/2030, Vanrose Junction       

    Palayam , Thiruvananthapuram                           -        Respondents 

   

3.   Aswin G .Krishnan, S/o.Krishnakumar ,

      TC 14/2030, Vanrose Junction     

      Palayam , Thiruvananthapuram

 

 4.   Krishna Kumar, S/o.Ganapathy Achari,

       Chandrika Bhavan , Chamavila,

       Peyad , Thiruvananthapuram.

 

JUDGMENT

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 15/2010 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananathapuram challenging the order of the Forum dated January 31, 2014 directing the OPs to pay Rs.97,000/- being the death benefit under the policy of deceased Amutha, the daughter of 1^st complainant and mother of minor complainants 2 and 3.

 

2.       The case of the complainants as testified by 1^st complainant as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:

The 1^st complainant is the mother of deceased Amutha and 2^nd and 3^rd complainants are her minor children.  Deceased Amutha  had availed an insurance policy of the opposite parties on June 29, 2006 for Rs.1,00,000/-.   The monthly premium was Rs.1500/- Deceased Amutha paid the premium till her death on 21/09/2008.  As the legal heirs of the deceased complainants are entitled to the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The opposite parties denied their claim stating that at the time of the death of Amutha policy was in a lapsed condition.  Therefore complainants filed this complaint for the amount due under the said policy.

 

 3.      The 1^st opposite party is M/s.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd, Bombay and second OP is its branch office at Thiruvnanthapuram.  They in their version contented thus before the Forum:

The husband of deceased Amutha is not a made a party in this complaint.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable.  The existence of policy in the name of the deceased is admitted.  But she did not pay the premium due on August 29, 2008. Therefore at the time of her death the policy was in a lapsed condition and consequently no benefit became payable under the policy.  Even then as a gesture of good will the fund value of the policy Rs.22,988.77 was offered to the complainants.  Therefore the complaint has to be dismissed.

4.       The husband of deceased Amutha was later impleaded as additional 3^rd OP in the complaint.  He in his version submitted that he has no objection in disbursing the amount to complainants. 

5.       The 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 and he produced Ext.P1 to P11 before the Forum.  No evidence was adduced by the Ops.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that complainants are entitled to the amount due under the policy and directed to opposite parties to pay to the complainants Rs.97,000/- with interest. The opposite parties have come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

6.       Heard both the counsels. 

7.       The following points arise for consideration.

1.  Whether the complainants are entitled to the amount due under the policy in question?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

8.       It is not disputed that deceased Amutha had a Life Insurance Policy of the opposite parties 1 and 2 for Rs.1,00,000/- and that she died on September 21, 2008.  Ext.P1 is the policy certificate.  The complainants being the mother and children of deceased Amutha claimed the amount due under the policy.

9.       The opposite parties M/s.ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company contented that the policy holder has failed to pay the premium on the due date i.e. on August 29,2008 or within 15 days grace period  as provided under the policy and that therefore on the date of death of Amutha i.e on September 21,2008 the policy was in a lapsed condition and hence complainants are not entitled to the death benefit under the policy.

 

10.     The opposite parties repudiated the claim of complainants only on the ground that the premium due on August 29, 2008 has not been paid.  The counsel for complainants argued that the insured has been paying the premium promptly, that though the premium was due on August 29, 2008 the insured had  right to pay the premium till September 29, 2008, but the insured died on September 21, 2008, that had the insured been alive she would have paid the arrears of premium and that therefore complainants are entitled to the death benefit under the policy.  There is force in the above contention.  The complainants relied on Ext.P4 and P10 to substantiate their contention.  Ext.P10 is the letter issued by opposite parties to the life assured on February 14, 2008 stating that the premium due on January 29, 2008 has not been paid and that if the premium is paid on or before March 16, 2008 along with interest accrued is paid the policy will be received.  Accordingly the complainants paid the amount and revived the policy.  Ext.P4 is the statement of account dated June 30, 2006.  It is seen from Ext.P4 that opposite parties received the premium on June 30, 2006.  That being so, the deceased had a right to pay the premium on or before September 29, 2008, but she died on September 21, 2008.  If she had been alive she would have paid the premium and renewed the policy.  Therefore the complainants are entitled to the death benefit under the policy.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

11.     The Forum has ordered the opposite parties Rs.97,000/- being the amount after adjusting the premium amount of Rs.3,000/-. We find no ground to interfere the said finding of the Forum.

In the result the appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 

 

JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI        : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.