1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that she is the legal wife of late Krushna Chandra Mandingi and the nominee under LIC policies obtained by her husband. It is submitted that late Mandangi was working under Ops 2 & 3 and during his life time had obtained 3 LIC policies as detailed below:-
Sl. No. Policy No. & date Sum Assured Monthly premiums
- 571425633 Rs.1, 00,000/- Rs.622/-
- 571428275 Rs.1, 00,000/- Rs.505/-
- 573210567 Rs. 50,000/- Rs.282/-
It is further submitted that K. C. Mandingi died on 21.5.2013 after a brief illness at Maliput and on the death of LA, the policies got matured. The present complainant approached the OP.1 for settlement of death claims of her late husband and submitted all relevant documents as required by OP.1 but the OP.1 is not showing any interest to settle the claims. The Ops 2 & 3 are also not taking any interest to that effect. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.2, 50,000/- towards the sum assured under the 3 policies with other death benefits besides interest @ 12% p.a. for the date of death and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted that the life assured had obtained 3 policies as detailed below:-
Sl. No. Pol. No. Sum Assured D.O.C. Mtly Prem. Status
- 573210567 Rs.50, 000/- 28.03.2010 Rs.282/- lapsed
- 571428275 Rs.1, 00,000/- 08.10.2009 Rs.505/- lapsed
- 571425633 Rs.1, 00,000/- 11.03.2009 Rs.622/- lapsed
It is contended that, the present complainant is the nominee under all the above policies who intimated on 29.5.2014 that the LA died on 21.5.2013 but after registration of death claim it was found that the policies are in lapsed condition due to nonpayment of premiums from 12/2011. It is also contended that the policies were under SSS and as per terms of policy the employer if fails to deposit the premiums, it is obligatory on the part of the LA to deposit the premiums directly but he failed to do so and as such the policies were in lapsed condition and no amount is payable to the present complainant. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The Ops 2 & 3 filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant is not their consumer as no service of any of the Ops has been hired by the complainant on consideration. The Ops submitted that Sri Mandingi was working as Attendant under them and premiums of LIC were being deducted from his salary under which the present complainant was nominee. It is further submitted that Sri Mandingi was a regular and habitual unauthorized absentee in his duties at different point of times as a result of which the salaries were held up on administrative ground by the authorities. During non drawal period of salary, it was the duty of LA to deposit the premiums with the LIC directly and for such inaction of the LA, the Ops are not liable. It is also further submitted that Mr. Mandingi was unauthorized absent from 12/2011 to 3/2012 and from 11/2012 to 21.5.2013 and that apart, his salary for some other period also were not drawn regularly on administrative ground. After death of the employee, with due procedure his unpaid salary for the above period were drawn and disbursed to the family members. Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. Parties have filed certain documents in support of their respective cases. Heard from the complainant as well as A/Rs for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case the complainant has filed copy of 3 policies obtained by her husband during his life time and from those policies, it was ascertained that the complainant is the nominee. The date of commencement of policies being 11.3.2009, 08.10.2009 and 28.3.2010 respectively, the complainant died on 21.5.2013. The case of the complainant is that after death of her husband she approached the Ops but they did not take any interest for settlement of death claims although deductions were regularly made from the salary of her husband.
6. The OP.1-LIC stated that the policies were in lapsed condition at the time of death of the LA due to nonpayment of premiums from 12/2011 and hence nothing is payable under the provisions of the policies. The Ops. 2 & 3 in their counter stated that late Mandingi was unauthorized absent from 12/2011 to 03/2012 and from 11/2012 to 21.5.2013. Apart from that the salaries for some other periods also were not drawn regularly on administrative grounds for which the LIC premiums were not deducted. After the death of employee, with due procedure, his non drawal salaries were drawn and disbursed to his family members and services were regularized. Accordingly, LIC premiums for non deposit periods have been credited against the policies by the competent authority. The Ops. 2 & 3 also have filed certificate in the form of a format showing details of deposit of premiums in respect of 3 policies with TV No. and date. The Ops have also in that format furnished the details of deposits in respect of 3 policies through salary deductions and it comes to Rs.61, 617/-.
7. From the above facts it was ascertained that there was no back premium in respect of 3 policies till 11/2011 and according to the OP.1 the FUP falls on 12/2011. It is seen that the premiums were not deducted and deposited due to non drawal of salaries of the LA. In case of policies issued under SSS mode, the employer is to give an authorization –cum – undertaking to the employer to deduct premiums from his salary every month and to remit the same to LIC and in case he is left with no salary by any reason, he undertakes to pay the premiums directly to LIC. In the present case, the LA had sufficient knowledge that due to unauthorized absence his salary were not drawn and it was his duty to deposit the premiums directly with the LIC but he did not do so for which the policies were lapsed.
8. It is also seen that the Ops 2 & 3 after the death of the employee, with due procedure, his salaries for the non drawal period have drawn and disbursed to his family members and also LIC premiums for non deposit period have been credited against the policies. The statement filed by the Ops clearly revealed that LIC premiums against all the policies have been deposited till 05/2013 i.e. till the last month of working of LA-employee. Hence we do not find any fault on the part of the Ops 2 & 3.
9. In the above circumstances, it was seen that the policies were in lapsed condition and after death the employers have drawn the salaries of the LA and deposited the premiums. It is a settled principle of law that after the death of LA, the policy cannot be regularized. However, the policies must have acquired some reduced paid up value on such deposits to which the complainant-nominee is entitled to get. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award any compensation and costs in favour of the complainant.
10. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.1 is directed to return the deposited premiums with other benefits if any as per rule under 3 policies to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
