Karnataka

StateCommission

A/451/2016

Smt, Renuka - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Bharati Patil

17 Nov 2023

ORDER

                                                                    Date of Filing :27.02.2016

Date of Disposal :17.11.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:17.11.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K BSANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.451/2016

 

 

Smt. Renuka

W/o Late Shanthakumar Jadhav

Age 37 years

R/o No.2-911/5/2/5

Naidu Layout

Rajapur Road

Gulbarga - 585 101                                                        Appellant

(ByMrs Bharati Patil, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

1. The Branch Manager

     LIC of India, CB-II

     M S K Mill Road

     Gulbarga-585 101

 

2. The Divisional Manager

    LIC of India

    Divisional Office

    Sath Kacheri Road

    Raichur-584 101

    (By Mr M K Lokesha, Advocate)

 

3. The AEE GESCOM (O & M)

    Sub-Division

    Shahabad-585 228

    Gulbarga District.                                                      Respondents

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of CP Act 1986 by the Complainant, aggrieved by the Order dated 27.01.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.148/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kalaburgi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments.   

 

3.       This Commission examined the Impugned Order, the Appeal documents, grounds of Appeal and secured Lower Court Records.

 

4.       The brief case of the Complainant, as stated before the District Forum is that the Complainant is the wife of deceased Shantakumar.   OPs 1 & 2 are the Insurers - the Branch Manager, LIC of India, CB-II, the Divisional Manager, LIC of India and OP3 is the Employer.  The contention of the Complainant is that, her Late Husband during his life time obtained 3 Insurance Policies under Salary Savings Scheme from OPs 1 & 2 vide Policy Nos. 1)661516666 2)661547432 & 3)661549213 with the Sum Assured being Rs.1,00,000/- each, on 22.09.2008, 28.03.2009 & 28.07.2009 respectively. The Husband of the Complainant died on 22.07.2011 allegedly due to Jaundice. The Complainant being the Nominee in the said Policies, staked her Claim on the OPs 1 & 2 on 19.11.2012, who spontaneously repudiated the claim stating that the Insured has suppressed his health habits while obtaining the Policies.  

 

The stand taken by the OPs 1 & 2 is that, all the 3 Policies were in lapsed condition for non-payment of Premiums as on the Date of Death of the deceased Insured and that only the initial premiums were received and the Authorisation letter was sent to his Employer, but he has not deducted the Premiums on the above Policies.  

 

While OP3 admitted the deceased Husband of the Complainant was an Employee of him as a Lineman at Bhankur Section and contended that he has no knowledge about the purchase of said three Policies and either the Complainant or OP1 has given Authorisation Letter for deduction of Premiums under monthly Salary Saving Scheme for the above Policies. 

 

The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, Dismissed the Complaint. Being not satisfied with the Order passed by the District Forum, Complainant is in Appeal.

 

5.       Admittedly, the Late Husband of the Complainant was an Employee of OP3 and during his life time, he had obtained 3 policies bearing No.1)661516666, 2)661547432 & 3)661549213, with the Sum Assured Rs.1,00,000/- each and the risk coverage dates as found from the documents are 22.09.2008, 28.03.2009 and 28.07.2009 respectively.  The Deceased Insured at the time of obtaining the 3 Policies was an young employee and he died on 22.07.2011.   The Policies obtained are Non-Medical Policies.  

 

6.       Further perusal of the Medical Records discloses that the Insured was admitted to the Hospital during 2010 and he died on 27.07.2011.  In other words, medical records discloses prior to his obtaining non-medical policies.  He was born on 31.12.1974 and at the time of obtaining the policies was aged about 34 years.  He has nominated his Wife as his Nominee in all the 3 Policies obtained by him.  The District Forum failed to ascertain some vital particulars either from the Complainant or from the Insurer, as to whether the Insured pursuant to obtaining the three Policies, whether he had paid the Premiums directly to the insurer or by way of an Authorisation Letter to his Employer for deducting the appropriate amount from his monthly salary for payment of the Premiums of the policies to OP3 on monthly basis. 

 

7.       No doubt, it has come in the enquiry that OP3/Employer has categorically denied the receipt of Authorisation Letter for deduction of the premiums of the Policies in the monthly salary from the office of CB-II for payment to the Insurance Company at Gulbarga.   In such circumstances, it is for the complainant to establish that pursuant to the acceptance of these three policies, whether the premiums have been paid by her late husband during his life time either directly to the Insurance Company or organised for recovery from his salary and payment through his Employer.  In this regard, District Forum also failed to obtain the copies of the 3 Insurance Policies/Policy Bonds, either from the Complainant or from the Insurer.   Further failed to ascertain whether the subsequent premiums have been paid, after first un-paid premium in respect of the 1^st Policy during February 2009, in respect of 2^nd Policy during May 2009 and 3^rd Policy during September 2009, in other words, first unpaid premium corresponding to these policies, since the risk date as found from the enquiry are 22.09.2008, 28.03.2009 and 28.07.2009 respectively.  The District Forum has failed to make a list of documents submitted by the parties during the course of enquiry, since no reference of such list appears in the Impugned Order.  In the circumstances, the Impugned Order requires to be interfered with by remitting the matter to the District Commission to decide the case afresh.  In the result, we pass the following

 

                                               

O R D E R

 

          Appeal is allowed.  Consequently, Impugned Order dated 27.01.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.148/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kalaburgi is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the District Commission with a direction to afford opportunities to both the parties for adducing further evidence, if any and dispose off the matter in accordance with Law within three months from the date of this Order.

 

Return the LCR forthwith to the District Commission.

 

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

Lady Member                     Judicial Member                        President

*s