Haryana

Ambala

CC/94/2018

Smt Naibo Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Marketing Manager Lic - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. Rathore

22 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.: 94 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :  09.03.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :  22.07.2019.

 

Smt. Naibo Devi wife of late Shri Jai Pal Singh, previously r/o village Kakar Kunda, P.O. Shahpur Nurd, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala, at present r/o village Dhanora, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. The Marketing Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Parkash 489, Model Town, Karnal.
2. Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.101-103, IInd Floor, Batra Building, Sector-17D, Chandigarh.
3. Shyam Lal, Commission Agent, LIC of India, r/o village Rukdi, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri A.K. Rathore, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri G.S. Antal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

Shri Devi Lal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.                

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To settle the claim of three policies which were in the name of deceased husband of the complainant and to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the her.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that husband of the complainant late Shri Jai Pal Singh, had taken three insurance policies from the OPs having policies Nos.177084802, 177113178, 177113177, dated 28.08.2010, 17.12.2011 & 17.12.2011 with maturity dates 28.07.2022, 17.09.2026 and 17.03.2026 respectively. He was paying regularly the installments of premium of all these policies to the OPs No.1 & 2 through OP No.3. Unfortunately, he was expired on 12.09.2016 and after his death, the above policies came to the knowledge of the complainant. In the month of October 2016, she being the nominee, contacted the OP No.3, who assured her that she will get all the benefits of the policies and suggested her to approach to OP No.1 for doing the needful in the matter. Accordingly, she approached the OP No.1 to pay the claim amount in terms of said policies, but it flatly refused to take any action in the matter. The complainant being the widow of late Shri Jai Pal Singh entitled to receive the benefits of insurance policies in accordance with the terms & conditions of the policies, but inspite of repeated requests and visits, the OPs did not pay the claim amount. She served a registered AD legal notice dated 03.02.2017 upon the OPs, but all in vain. By not paying the claim amount, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi. On merits, it is stated that the husband of the complainant had obtained three policies as per details given below:-

S.No.	Policy No.	Commencement date	Table plan	Premium amount (Rs.) (quarterly)
1	177084802	28.08.2010	182-12-12	200/-
2	177113178	17.12.2011	198-15-15	77/-
3	177113177	17.12.2011	198-15-15	77/-

 

                   It is wrong that the husband of the complainant was paying the regular installments of premium of all the polices to the OPs, as all the three policies got lapsed condition, due to non-payment of installments of premium by the deceased Life Assured (hereinafter referred to as DLA). For the policy No.177084802, only two monthly premiums, for policy No.177113177 only one quarterly premium and for policy No.177113178 only two quarterly premiums were deposited by the DLA. FUP (First unpaid premium) under these policies was 28.10.2010, 17.03.2012 & 17.06.2012 respectively and the life assured expired on 12.09.2016. So, all the polices were in lapse condition on the date of his death and had not acquired any paid up value, as the duration of policies were only 2 months, 3 months & 6 months respectively. As such, nothing was payable as per terms & conditions of the policies. Hence, death claim could not be paid to the complainant. The legal notice was received by the OPs, which was duly replied by them vide letter dated 01.03.2017 specifying the status of all the policies. No person or agent had approached the office of the OPs to get the claim under the said policies. The photocopies of policy bonds alongwith other documents were sent by the advocate of the complainant and claims were duly considered and proper reply was again given to advocate vide letter dated 13.07.2017. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint against them alongwith costs.

                   Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version and has raised preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and the same is not maintainable against him. On merits, it is stated that after receiving the amount of installments of premium from the DLA, he being agent, had deposited the amount of installments of premium with the OPs No.1 & 2. He has no role to play in the case. The rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint against him alongwith costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-17 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Rajiv Jain, Chief Manager, Star Health Allied Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi as Annexure OPA alongwith documents as Annexure OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the case laws referred by the ld. counsel for the OPs.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the deceased husband of the complainant had taken 3 policies from the OPs No.1 & 2. After the death of her husband, the complainant being the nominee, approached the OPs, to get the claim amount, under the said policies, but they refused to pay the claim amount.  

6.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that due to non payment of the installments of premium by the DLA, all the three policies got lapsed and on the date of death of the DLA, had not acquired any paid up value, as the duration of the policies bearing Nos.177084802, 177113178, 177113177, was only 2 months, 3 months and 6 months respectively. Thus, as per terms and conditions of the policies, nothing is payable. To support of his contention, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has placed reliance on the Revision Petition titled as Ranjit Singh Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co., date of decision 04.06.2018 (NC) and Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Hemlata Garg, Revision Petition No.3180 of 2008, date of decision 17.05.2016 (NC).

7.                Admittedly, the DLA had taken three policies bearing Nos.177084802, 177113178, 177113177, from the OPs No.1 & 2. From the status reports of the said three policies (Annexure R4 to R6), it is evident that all the policies got lapsed due to non payment of amount of the premium. Since all the policies were lying in lapsed condition without acquiring any paid up value on the date of death of the DLA, therefore, as per terms & conditions of the policies, the complainant is not entitled to get any benefits under the policies in question. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, consequently, we dismiss the same without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :22.07.2019.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                       President