Complaint filed on: 28-09-2010
Disposed on: 25-01-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2218/2010
DATED THIS THE 25th JANUARY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Smt.Muniyamma
W/o. late Narasimha,
Presently residing at
No.129, 18th Block,
III Cross Road,
Railway Quarters,
Yeshwanthpura,
Bangalore-22
V/s
Opposite party: -
1. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of
India, Residency Road Branch
(614), Residency Road,
Bangalore-01
2. The Station Master
O/O SSE/PW1,
South Western Railway,
Bangalore division,
Yashawanthapur Railway Station
Bangalore.
O R D E R
SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,
The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [herein after called as OP] in brief is, that her husband Narasimha was working as an employee in Southern Railways. During his life time, he had taken three life insurance policies from OP. That her husband died on 7-10-2000 while he was in service, premiums were deducted from his salary and paid towards the policies. The OP has paid the amount due under a policy bearing No.610940423 after the death of the insured, but failed to settle the amount under other two policies, under which Rs.25,000/- is the assured amount in each of these policies. Premiums were to be paid under salary saving scheme was to be deducted every month, out of his salary by his employer and was to be credited to LIC. If the premiums were not paid, OP should have informed the insured regarding non-payment of premiums. Despite approach by the complainant after the death of her husband, OP has not paid the insurance amount under other two policies and therefore attributing deficiency in the service of the OP has prayed for a direction to OP to pay her the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- under two policy with interest at 18% per annum.
2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version, giving details of three polices that the husband of the complainant had. It is stated that deceased had taken one policy on 14-10-1997 for Rs.25,000/- another policy for the same amount on 28-6-1999 and third policy was taken on 28-3-1992 for Rs.15,000/- and stated that amount due under the third policy has been paid to the complainant and has further stated that the insured had not paid premiums of the other policies and were lapsed and nothing is payable under those policies as per the terms and conditions. That the records of their office are destroyed under process of destruction of old records of five years and above. It is further stated that as the first and second policy had lapsed even before three years nothing was payable and maintained that the complaint is also not maintainable, which is filed after lapse of 10 years, after the cause of action arose and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the manager of OP have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of death certificate of her husband and copies of two policies, with a copy of legal notice she got issued to the OP. OP has produced a copy of terms and conditions of the police. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.
1) Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service by not paying the insurance amount due under policies No.361120292 and 612673090?
2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: See the final Order
REASONS
6. Answer on Point No.1: We find no dispute between the parties regarding the deceased Narasimha, the husband of the complainant having had availed three life insurance policies with effect from 14-10-1997, 28-6-1999 and 28-3-1992. Admittedly, OP has settled the claim under the policy availed on 28-3-1992. Therefore the dispute only rest with regard to the other two policies.
7. The OP has declined to pay any amount under the first two policies, on the ground that, the first two policies have lapsed during early part even before three years after commencement, for non-payment of premium amount and therefore stated that no paid up amount could be paid under these policies and therefore justifying their action in refusing to pay any amount under the policies. The OP in the version and also affidavit evidence, so far as, the first policy is concerned has categorically stated that the insured after availing the first policy on 14-10-1997 did not pay premium for eleven months, then again, during April 1999, May 1999 and again from August 1999 and from February 2000 to Sept.2000. Similarly with regard to the second policy has stated that the complainant who availed the policy on 28-6-1999 did not pay premium during ten periods again during August 1999, Sept.1999 with eight terminal gaps till Sept.2000 and stated both policies lapsed for non-payment of premium amount. The complainant has not contraverted these facts in the affidavit evidence filed by her. It is not her case that premiums were regularly recovered from the salary of the insured and credited to the account of the OP. This forum had even told to the counsel for the complainant to produce any salary statement to show that premiums were paid regularly, so that the OP could be directed to pay the paid up amount to the complainant. But she has not produced any materials to substantiate either recovery of the premium amounts from the salary of the insured or payments of premiums by any other means. The complainant, in the complaint herself has averred that premiums were to be paid under salary saving scheme were to be deducted every month, out of his salary and was to be credited to the account of the OP. That means the employer was required to deduct and credit to the account of OP, but has not done. If the complainant had authorized for deduction and the employer had deducted, but failed to send the premium amount to the OP, the complainant could have made the employer as the party but has not done. The averments of the complaint show that the employer was to deduct and send to OP. From these materials on records, it is manifest that the insured did not arrange to pay premiums but allowed those policies to lapse even before one year or so.
8. The condition of the policy namely, condition No.4 deals with the policies which are lapsed before three years and after three full years and further says if the policy or policies are lapsed after atleast three full years and in the event of death of the insured paid up money will have to be paid to the nominee etc. But in the case in the hand, premiums were not paid for full three years. Therefore the question of payment of paid up value did not arise. Hence, the OP has rightly refused to pay any amount, which can not be held as deficient.
9. Further it could be seen that the insured died on 7-10-2000, the complainant had made claim form for insurance amount and the OP paid the insurance amount due under third policy on 17-3-2010 itself and refused to pay any amount under the other two policies. The complainant having kept quit from March 2001 till 2010 has by getting a legal notice issued on 16-12-2009 and filed this complaint on 28-9-2010, which is barred by limitation as contemplated under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act No application is filed for condonation of delay. The complaint thus is to be dismissed as barred by limitation. With this the complaint, in our view has to be dismissed and we therefore answer point no-1 in the negative and pass the following order.
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 25th January 2011.
Member Member President
