DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHADRAK.
C.D.Case No. 01 of 2019
Dated the 12th day of February, 2021
Present :- 1. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Presiding Member
2. Afsara Begum, Member
Smt. Sarojini Mallick, aged about 37 years,
W/o. :- Late Ghanashyam Mallick,
of Vill. :- Prabodhpur, P.O. :- Mandari,
P.S. :- Basudevpur, Dist. :- Bhadrak. …… Complainant
-: V e r s u s :-
1.) The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bhadrak Branch,
At :- Bonth Chhak, P.O./P.S./Dist. :- Bhadrak (Town),
2.) The Block Education Officer, Basudevpur.
At /P.O./P.S. :- Basudevpur, Dist.:-Bhadrak ……. Opp. Parties.
Counsel For Complainant : Sri D. Nayak & Others, Advocate.
Counsel For the O.Ps No.1 : Sri P.K.Rout, Advocate
For O.P No.2 : Ex- Parte.
Date of hearing 10.02.20121
Date of Order : 12 02.2021
AFSARA BEGUM ,MEMBER :
Deficiency in service in respect of non-settlement of Insurance claim is the allegation arrayed against the O.Ps.
The facts in brief as stated by the Complainant in her complaint are to the effect that her husband namely Ghanshyam Mallick while working as a Teacher in Radhaballavpur UGME School, Basudevpur under the O.P. No. 2 had opened a LIC Policy bearing No. 583848187 dated 28.03.2015 under Monthly Salary Saving Scheme for an assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Accordingly the monthly installment was fixed at Rs. 804/- per month which was payable to the O.P. No. 1 Insurance Corporation in every month by the O.P. No. 2 , the employer of the deceased policy holder after deducting from the salary of the Policy Holder-Employee. During subsistence of the policy the policy holder suddenly died on 10.08.2015. Thereafter, the Complainant in the capacity of nominee of the deceased policy holder lodged the insurance claim and submitted documents like Death Certificate, employer certificate before the O.P. No. 1-Insurance company for its settlement& payment. On 17.09.2018 the O.P. No. 1-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of “Nothing is payable against these policies towards death claim benefit because of the reason- SSS exgratia is not applicable in this case” and accordingly intimated to complainant in writing. With these allegations the Complainant has preferred the instant complaint seeking directions to the O.Ps to settled claim under Salary Saving Scheme, pay the amount due along with other benefits under the policy with 9 % interest from the date of acknowledgement slip till the date of realization in her favour and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to complainant towards damage for mental agony & harassment.
O.P. No. 1 submitted his written objection refuting the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the Policy No. 583848187 was availed by the deceased Policy holder Ghanshyam Mallick but the same is lapsed due to non-payment of premiums for the month of 03/2015 & 04/2015. Further the policy commenced with the mandatory deposit of two number of premium dues for the month of 03/2015 & 04/15 and the premium for the succeeding two months were not received at all resulting in lapsation of policy. The premium for 07/2015 was received by the branch on 26.11.2015 and it can only be ascertained from the employer of the policy holder regarding the mode of deduction that is whether the premium was deducted from the salary or deposited post the death of the policy holder as an after thought to avail the insurance claim. Further more the Salary Saving Scheme was introduced with a view to help salaried class deduct premia directly from the salary through their employer and remit the same to the servicing branch office of LIC of India. As per the SSS Manual (Page No. 6-TERMS & CONDITIONS) in operation with the LIC of India, the employer or the paying authority is to remit the premia so received from the employees within 7 days from the date of deduction. Furthermore, the corporation in order to ensure accountability of receipt of premium has given the days of grace under SSS policies to 15 days and whereas in ordinary or express policies the days of grace are 30 days or one month whichever is less. With these pleas the O.P. No. 1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Although O.P. No. 2 received notice issued by this commission does not prefer to appear nor submitted his written version in his defense as a result the O.P. No. 2 was set ex-parte.
We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant & written objection filed by the O.P. No.1. Heard, in course of hearing & perusal materials available on record & observed that-.
The Complainant’s husband namely Ghanashyam Mallck who was working as a Teacher in Radhaballavpur UGME School, Basudevpur under the O.P. No. 2, opted LIC Policy under monthly Salary Saving Scheme for an assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- . The policy is for a period of 15 years having it’s date of commencement 28.03.15 and date of Maturity is 03/2030 under Plan/Term. 815/15/15 . The Monthly installment was fixed at Rs.804/- per month which was payable to O.P.-Insurance Company in every month by the O.P. No. 2 . The employer of the deceased Policy holder after deducting from the salary of the policy holder-employee was entrusted to deposit the same as the said policy was obviously under Salary Saving Scheme. Undisputedly as per the policy condition the monthly premium was deducted from the salary of the deceased employee and has paid to the insurance company which was received by the O.P. No. 1 on 26.11.2015 . We did not find any dispute so as to date of death of polcy holder i.e. 10.08.2015. It is also undisputed fact that the responsibility of deducting & remitting the premium in time periodically is taken over by the employer. The Drawing & Disbursing Officer has to deduct the amount from the salary and deposit and credited in the account of policy holder. It is thus clear that responsibility lies upon O.P No.2 for deducting the premiums from the salary of the employee and remitting it . In case of non-deduction of premium or non-remittance of premium resulting in the lapse of the Insurance policy, employer who is the agent of the O.P. No. 1 ( LIC) is negligent and responsible for the lapsed policy and not the deceased employee or his nominee i.e. the present complainant .
In order to substantiate the contention of the complainant the counsel of the complainant has cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as reported in AIR, SC, Page No. :- 3087, in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation and others Vs. Rajib Kumar Bhasker, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as reported in 2007,1,CPJ, Page No. :- 205 in P.Indira Devi Vs. L.I.C of India and anr. Hon’ble Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as reported in 2005,4,CPJ, Page No. :- 497 in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. N.C.Samantaray and anr. And Hon’ble Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as reported in 2009,4,CPJ, Page No. :- 239 in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Hemalata Nayak and another where in it has held that ;
“Employer under the Salary Saving Scheme acts as an agent of LIC while deducting premium amount from salary of Employee and failure on part of Employer binds LIC of it’s liability to pay policy amount”
In view of the analysis made as above and taking the evidences available on record into consideration, we do not have any hesitations to come to a conclusion that the instant complaint bears merit. It is also a fact that the O.P No.2 has clearly failed to prove as to he has paid the amount deducted from the salary and credited the same to O.P No.1 for which the said O.P is liable for payment. Secondly O.P No.1 has not issued any reminder to O.P No.2 to deposit the deducted amount to the credit of the policy account. We are of the opinion that both the O.Ps have grossly neglected in discharging their responsibilities as a result of which the innocent complainant suffered . Accordingly ordered.
O R D E R
The complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. O.P. No. 1-Insurance Company is directed to pay the assured sum of Rs. 1,00.000/- (Rupees One lakh) with accrued interest thereon @ 6.5% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 10.01.2019 within 30 days of receipt of this order . O.P. No. 1 is at liberty to recover the loss suffered due to the negligent conduct of the deducting & remitting authority, i.e. The Block Education Officer, Basudevpur who has/had implied authority to act as an agent of the insurance company i.e. O.P. No. 1, if desired so, in accordance with law. Further, the O.P No. 1 is also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony & harassment and also Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
This order is pronounced in the open Commission on this day of 12th February, 2021 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
