Haryana

Ambala

CC/134/2013

SMT KIRNA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

HARVINDER SINGH

24 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

            Complaint Case No.    : 134 of 2013

Date of Institution       : 31.05.2013

            Date of Decision         : 24.05.2017

 

Kirna Devi wife of Sh. Surinder Kumar, R/o House No. 92, Village, Ghasitpur Tehsil Saha Distt. Ambala (Haryana).                                                                                               

……Complainant.

                                                                                          Versus

1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Divisional Manager/Officer, Division Office, Jeevan Parkash, 489, Model Town, Karnal (Haryana).
2. Chief Manager/S.S.O of Branch Office of L.IC. Jeevan Jyoti, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Ambala Cantt.
3. Jatinder Kumar son of Sh. Nathu Ram, R/o Village and Post office, Bhita Tehsil Saha at Jagadhri Road, Distt. Ambala.

 

                                                                                                ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA,  PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. Harvinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. R.K. Jindal, counsel for the OP No. 1 and 2.

                        Sh. Rajesh Sharma, counsel for the OP No. 3.

 

ORDER.

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that the respondent No. 3 on behalf of the OP No. 1 and 2 insured the life of Krishan Kumar, who is son of the complainant vide policy No. 177518755 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- for death benefit assured under main plan and accident benefit sum assured for Rs. 1,25,000/- and instalment of premium was payable quarterly of the amount of Rs. 1,531/- from 10-01-2011 and claimant was made nominee being the mother of Krishan Kumar. Due to busy schedule of Krishan Kumar, OP No. 3 used to collect and do all the proceedings and to pay the premium since beginning regularly well in advance by collecting the premium amount from Krishan Kumar in the presence of the complainant. It is further submitted that the premium for the period of April-May 2012, OP No. 3 usually collected the premium amount of Rs. 1531 from Krishan Kumar in the presence of complainant in the third week of April 2012. It is further submitted that on 17-05-2012 Krishan Kumar met with an accident when under the employment of his private firm and he died on 18-05-2012 and the said occurrence was reported by conductor Ashu son of Kushal Pal on 18-05-2012. On which DDR No. 12 was recorded and post mortem also conducted. It has come to the knowledge of the complainant later that the OP No. 3 had not deposited the premium for April 2012, which was collected from the Krishan Kumar but shown to be paid on 18-05-2012, whereas, the complainant and her son expected that the same would have been paid in the third week of April, 2012. The original policy had been detained by OP No. 1 and 2 and even photocopy had been taken by OP No. 3 with ill intention to avoid the payments of death benefits to the nominee/claimant by showing the payment made vide receipt from April-May 2012. It is further submitted that no copy or original policy left with the claimant and claimant received the letter in December 2012 that nothing is payable to the claimant. Thereafter, complainant visited the local office and asked for the death benefit claim being nominee of her son Krishan Kumar to pay insurance as well as accidental death benefit but in vain. As such, the complainant has prayed that the OP is deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant and thus prayed that the OPs may kindly be directed to pay claim of Rs. 1,25,000/- as insured claim and Rs. 1,25,000/- as death claim due to accidental benefit along with interest and Rs. 11,000/- as costs, to the complainant.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed reply vide which OP No. 1 and 2 raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts. On merits, It has been admitted that the deceased Life assured Late Shri Krishan Kumar died on 18-05-2012 at 3:30 AM in the Morning and the premium due on 10-04-2012 to keep the policy in question in force has been deposited on 18-05-2012 at 14:05 PM after the death of insured intentionally, as such at the time of death, the policy in question was lying lapsed and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question, nothing is payable to the complainant or any other legal heirs of the deceased Krishan Kumar. It is admitted that the policy No. 177518755 was issued by answering respondent to Shri. Krishan Kumar deceased for sum assured for Rs. 1,25,000/- with date of commencement 10-01-2011, however, the risk was started on 11-02-2011 under T& T 165-20-20. The OP no. 3 is the agent of OP No. 1 and 2 but never authorized to collect the premium from deceased Krishan Kumar.  It is further submitted that the amount of Rs. 1531/- cleverly deposited after the death of the deceased life assured by the complainant was refunded by the opposite parties on 28-03-2013 vide cheque Number 346600 to the complainant. Hence, the OP No. 1 and 2 prayed that the  present complain may kindly be dismissed with costs.

                        OP No. 3 by filing his reply raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts. On merits, It has been admitted that on 18-05-2012 two persons came on his shop and gave Rs. 1,531/- to OP No. 3 and told that the complainant sent the premium as they visited there for their personal work and believing on their words, who claimed to be relatives of the complainant had taken the premium of R.s 1,531/- and deposited the same on the same day i.e. on 18-05-2012 at about 2:00 PM in LIC Office. Rest of the averments made by the complainant are wrong and denied. Hence, the OP No. 3 prayed for dismissal of the  present complain with costs.

  3.                   To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavits Annexure CX, CY & CZ alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-25 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No. 1 and 2 tendered affidavit of Ajay Gupta annexure RX alongwith documents as annexure R-1 and R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No. 1 and 2. Counsel for OP No. 3 tendered affidavit of Jatinder Kumar as annexure RA and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No. 3.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the case file very carefully. It is not disputed that deceased Krishan Kumar had paid premium till 01/2012 as annexure C5 to C9.  But premium for the month of April 2012 was paid on 18-05-2012 at about 2:00 PM as per annexure C14 and the deceased was died on 18-05-2012 at about 3:30 AM as proved by annexure C12 as well as from post mortem report. In view of the above said documents, it is clearly shows that the premium for the month of April 2012 was deposited on 18-05-2012 i.e. after the death of the insured with malafide intention. In this regard, counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case law III (2005) CPJ 31 (SC) titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mani Ram, wherein it is held that Insurance (life): Lapse of Policy: Non-payment of premium : Insurance Company not liable – Terms and conditions of Policy – payable of premium to be made within grace period of one month – policy would lapse in case of non-compliance – Premium not paid within grace period – insurance company wholly justified in rejecting claim of the complainant – no exception can be taken against such decision – For a below committed error of law in allowing claim of respondent – orders liable to be set aside –orders passed by three commissions set aside – Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Section 12, another case II (1997) CPJ 129 (NC), titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors v. Miss Anu Mohanot & Ors, wherein it is held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (g) – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 2 (11) – Insurance – Deficiency  in Service  - Repudiation of claim – back dating – two separate life insurance policies were issued on 13-05-1986 covering insurance risk from 21-04-1985 – insured expired on 10-09-1986 – did not pay the insurance premium due on 21-04-1986 – claim repudiated on 22-09-1986 – State Commission directed the Insurance company to pay Rs. Two Lacs with interest – Hence appeal – Whether repudiation of claim is correct ? – (Yes), case law AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2459 in civil Appeals Nos. 7202-7203 of 1996, D/- 04-04-1997 titled as Harshad J. Shah and another v. LI.C. of India and ors and  another case law 2015 (2) CPR 471 (NC) titled as LIC of India & Anr. V. Sukadev Sutar & Anr,  which are squarely covering the facts of the present case.     

                        On the other hand, counsel for complainant has argued that he is entitled for the accidental benefit as he has made the payment regularly through agent. He has relied upon the judgments in case law in civil appeal No. 3589 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 23511 of 2009) dt. 17-04-2012 titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmamma and other, case law 1998 (3) Civil Court Cases 565 (P&H) titled as Union of India v. Smt. Kamla Devi, Chairman-cum-Managing  Director, another case law 1997 (2) CLT, 341 titled as “Golden Forest India Ltd. vs. Smt. Champa Devi and others” which are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5.                     After going through the arguments of counsel for the parties as well as in view of the laws placed on the file by the counsel for the opposite parties, we are of the view that the deceased/Life assured Late Shri Krishan Kumar died on 18-05-2012 at 3:30 AM in the Morning and the premium has been deposited on 18-05-2012 at 14:05 PM i.e. after the death of insured intentionally as well as after the lapse of grace period, as such at the time of death, the policy in question was lying lapsed and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question, nothing is payable to the complainant or any other legal heirs of the deceased Krishan Kumar. Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief qua the present policy and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room. 

Announced on: 24.05.2017                                                         

                                                                                                       (D.N. ARORA)                                                                                                           

                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                                                                                                                                                                                           MEMBER

 

                                                                       

                                                                                    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                MEMBER