BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.S. Chinnaiah,B.A.,B.L.,I/C President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 28th day of March, 2008
C.C.No. 137/07
Between
Machapogu Eswaramma, S/o. Late Machapogu Kukkanna, Aged about 30 years,
House-wife, R/o.H.No.4/53 B, Nidzur Village and Post, Kurnool Mandal and District at present R/o.H.No.1/165, Mamidalapadu Village, Kurnool (M and Dist). ..Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Handri river view colony, Kurnool.
1) The Senior Divisional Manager,Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Raja Reddy Veedhi, Kadapa, Kadapa District.
… Opposite parties
This C.C coming on before us for final hearing on 21-02-2008, Sri.B. Chandrudu, and Sri. M.C. Madduiletty, Advocates Kurnool for the complainant and of Sri. L. Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following.
ORDER
(Sri. S.Chinnaiah, I/C President)
C.C.No.137/07
1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.78,000/- grant future interest from the date of petition till date of realization and costs of the complaint.
2. The complainant Mashapogu Eswaramma, who is the wife of Kukkanna (herein after referred to as deceased ) filed a complaint contending that her husband has insured his life under Money back policy for a period of 20 years with the opposite parties 1 & 2 under the policy bearing No.653563688 dated 4-8-2004 and paid 1st premium of Rs.1696/-. The policy commenced from 15-8-2004 and the policy will be expired on 15-02-2024 and the policy got matured on 15-02-2024. The payment should be payable half yearly premium under Money back policy. It is further stated that the insured kukkanna died on 05-07-2006 as he was murdered by somebody. The complainant is the nominee of the deceased. After the death of Kukkanna, the complainant gave a requisition to the Branch Manager, LIC of India, Kurnool for settlement of benefits under the policy. But the Branch Manger did not respond to her requisition. Finally, the complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite party No.1 dated
24-2-2007.Opposite party No.1 also replied as per the terms and policy, they are not liable to pay any amount under the policy. It is stated that at any time the policy lapsed due to non payment of installment amounts, the duty of the opposite party is to issue notice to the insured for the payment of installments amount prior to lapse of the policy. But the opposite parties did not give any notice for the payment of instilment amounts to the deceased when he was alive or to the complainant after the death of insured. The complainant is innocent and she did not know what are the terms and conditions of the policy. Due to that she requested number of times to the opposite party No.1 for the payment of death claim of the deceased under the policy. But the opposite party No.1 and his agents did not explain properly and not issued any legal notice to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% p.a and costs. Thus the case of the complainant.
3. The opposite party No.2 filed a counter opposing the petition contents of the complainant contending that it is a fact that the deceased, life assured kukkanna submitted the proposal dated
04-08-2004 to Branch office, Kurnool, seeking insurance on his own life for a sum assured of Rs.50,000/- under Money back policy and plan and term 75-20 with accident benefit and opted to pay the premium under half yearly mode. The original proposal is dated
04-08-2004. It is further stated that the life assured M. Kukkanna nominated his wife i.e., the complainant Smt. M. Eswaramma under section 39 of Insurance Act. Accordingly basing on his statements and declaration, the risk on his life was accepted and policy was issued with date of commencement as 15-08-2004 under the plan and term 75-20 for a sum assured Rs.50,000/- under half-yearly mode with premium of Rs.1696/- per month as sought by the deceased life assured. It is further stated that the deceased life assured has to pay the premiums at the rate of the policy and as per condition No.2 if the premium is not paid before the expiry of the days of grace, the policy will be lapsed. A grace period of 30 days is allowed for payment of yearly, half yearly and quarterly premiums. Once the policy is lapsed, the risk will not be covered during such lapsed period and in the event of death of the life assured during such lapsed period nothing is payable under the policy. According to the relevant condition No.2 “ A grace period of one month but not less than 30 days will be allowed for payment of yearly, half yearly or quarterly premiums and 15 days for monthly premiums, if death occurs within this period and before the payment of premium then due the policy still be valid and the sum assured paid after deduction of the said premium as also unpaid premiums following due before the next anniversary of policy. If the premium is not paid before expiry of the days of grace, the policy lapses. If the policy has not lapsed and the claim is admitted in case of death under a policy where the mode of payment of premium is other than yearly, unpaid premiums if any falling due before next policy anniversary shall be deducted from the claim amount”. It is further stated that the life assured died on 05-07-2006. In order to secure death benefits under the policy, the policy should have been kept in force at least by paying half yearly premium due upto 15-02-2006. But the life assured had paid premiums upto 15-02-2005 and the policy was lapsed from 15-08-2005. On receipt of the death intimation from the wife of the deceased life assured, the opposite party informed the complainant that the policy is lapsed due to non payment of premiums due from 15-08-2005 and onwards and as per policy condition nothing is payable. It is further stated that the opposite party did not mention in the policy bond that the policy holder can remit the premiums to the Agents of the Corporation and they are authorized to collect the premiums on behalf of them. The policy holder should remit the premiums to the office of the opposite party. There is no deficiency or violation of contractual obligations on the part of the opposite parties as the life assured was murdered on 05-07-2006 when the policy was in lapsed condition due to non payment of premium due by 15-08-2005 the opposite party informed the complainant that nothing will be payable under the policy as per the policy condition No.2. Therefore, there is no question of causing mental agony to the complainant arise. Hence to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The opposite party No.1 filed memo adopting the counter filed by opposite party No.2.
5. Heard arguments both sides.
6. The point that arises for consideration herein is : whether the complainant proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?.
7. Exs.A-1 to A-5 are marked for the complainant and Exs.B-1 and B-2 for the opposite parties.
8. Ex.A-1 is original policy bond. Ex.A-2 is office copy of legal notice, dated 24-02-2007, Ex.A-3 repudiation letter dated 26-2-2007, Ex.A-4 copy of death certificate, Ex.A-5 is Family members certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool.
9. Ex.B-1 is the original proposal dated 04-08-2004, Ex-B2 is the status report of policy bearing No.653563688.
10. We have gone through the contents of the complaint, counter, chief affidavit of the complainant and counter affidavit of the opposite parties, documents filed by both parties and written arguments and the relevant material available on record.
11. Mashapogu Kukkanna has taken Money Back Policy insuring life with the opposite parties under Ex.A-1 policy bond commencing from 15-08-2004 and with half yearly mode of payment and the premium was Rs.1696/-. The said Kukkanna has to pay the half yearly premium on 15th February and 15th of August every year till the date of maturity or till his prior death. The said Kukkanna paid the premium upto
15-02-2005. He died on 05-07-2006 as he was murdered by somebody. While taking the policy he nominated his wife Smt. Eswaramma. These are the admitted facts.
12. The grievance of the complainant who is the nominee of the Kukkanna is that after the death of her husband she gave a requisition to the opposite parties for settlement of benefits under the policy Ex.A-1. As her request was not considered she got issued legal notice under Ex.A-2 to the opposite parties. But they did not settle the claim and gave reply repudiating the claim under Ex.A-3 sating that the policy was lapsed due to non payment of installment amounts. She also filed Ex.A-4 Death Certificate of her husband Kukkanna and ExA-5 Family member certificate. The staunch case of the complainant is as she is innocent she does not know the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further stated that at any time the policy was lapsed due to non payment of installment amounts, the duty of the opposite party is to issue notice to the insured for the payment of installment amount prior to lapse of the policy, but the opposite parties did not give any notice for the payment of installment amount to the deceased when he was alive or to her after the death of her husband. Thus the complainant claims that there is every negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties is non settling the claim.
13. The contention of the opposite parties is that the deceased Kukkanna opted to pay the premium under half yearly mode. The original proposal is dated 04-08-2004. The risk on his life was commenced from 15-08-2004 under the plan and term 75-20 for a sum assured Rs.50,000/-. He paid Rs.1696/- on 04-08-2004 and the policy commenced from 15-08-2004 under Ex.A-1. Ex.B-1 is the original proposal dated 04-08-2004. The life assured had paid policy upto 15-02-2005 and the policy lapsed from 15-08-2005. According to the relevant condition No.2 a grace period of one month but less than 30 days will be allowed for payment of yearly, half yearly or quarterly premiums. Thus the staunch contention of the opposite parties is that the policy lapsed from 15-08-2005.
14. After going through the rival contentions and Ex.B-2, Status report of the policy in question we have to necessarily accept the contention of the opposite parties. It is not in dispute that the life assured Kukkanna has paid premiums upto 15-02-2005. He died on 05-07-2006. The policy was lapsed from 15-08-2005. As seen from Ex.B-2 Status report, the delay of payment of the policy is 10 months and 20 days. In order to secure death benefits under the policy, the policy should have been kept in force at least by paying half yearly premium due upto 15-02-2006. But the life assured had paid premiums upto 15-02-2005 and the policy was lapsed from
15-08-2005. Hence under the circumstances, it needs no further details of the case and it can be said that the policy lapsed from
15-08-2005. As seen from the policy bond Ex.A-1 the opposite parties did not mention in the policy bond that the policy holder can remit the premiums to the agents of the corporation and they are authorized to collect the premiums. It is to be stated that any amount of sympathy can be shown to the complainant as she lost her husband at her early age he was murdered. But under the circumstances of this case no sympathy can be extend to the complainant as the policy lapsed from 15-08-2005 only. What all we have to blame the providence of the complainant, but non else. The complainant has not shown that there is a provision for the opposite parties to issue notice to the life assured before the policy lapsed. Hence under the circumstance, we are satisfied that there are no grounds to accept the contention of the complainant as the policy lapsed over 10 months 20 days prior to the date of death of the deceased Kukkanna as seen under Ex.B-2 status report. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed but under the circumstances of the case without costs.
15. The complaint is dismissed. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 28th day of March, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER I/C PRESIDENT
Appendix of evidence
Witness examined
For Complainant: For Opposite parties:
-Nil- -Nil
Documents marked
For the Complainant:
Ex.A-1. Original Policy bond.
Ex.A-2. Office copy of legal notice, dated 24-02-2007.
Ex.A-3. Repudiation letter dated 26-02-2007.
Ex.A-4. Copy of death certificate.
Ex.A-5. Family members certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool.
For the opposite parties:
Ex.B-1 Original proposal dated 04-08-2004.
Ex.B-2. Status report of policy bearing No.653563688.
By the Forum:
Sd/-
- Nil- I/C PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1. Sri. B. Chandrudu, & M.C. Maddilety, Advocates, Kurnool for the complainant.
2. Sri. L. Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite parties.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
