JUSTICE V. K. JAIN (ORAL)

          Late Shri Fazal Ahmad, father-in-law of the complainant/petitioner purchased a ULIP Policy on 02.05.1995.  He died on 06.01.1997.  Being his nominee, the complainant/petitioner sought benefit available in case of accidental death, in terms of the policy taken by the deceased, from the respondent.  The respondent, while paying a sum of Rs.6610.34 to her, denied the benefit in case of accidental death, amounting to Rs.30,000/-, to her.  Being aggrieved from the denial of the said benefit, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent primarily on the ground that the deceased having failed to make timely payment of the premium, the benefit in case of accidental death was not available.  It was pointed out in the reply filed by the respondent that under the 10 years plan with half yearly payment taken by the deceased, premium amounting to Rs.1500/- was payable on 10^th April and 10^th October every year, but the deceased had failed to make payment in terms of the aforesaid plan taken by him.  It was also stated in the reply that as per the terms of the scheme, 15 days grace period was available in case of non-payment by the due date and thereafter the insurance cover stood automatically withdrawn.  It was stated in the reply that as against due dates of 10.10.95, 10.04.96 and 10.10.96, the premium was paid on 09.09.96, 09.09.96 and 20.12.96 respectively for the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th installments.

3.      The District Forum, vide order dated 16.12.1999, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant/petitioner along with interest @ 12% p.a.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 09.09.2015, allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the complaint.         Being aggrieved, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5.      A perusal of the Membership Certificate issued to the deceased by the respondent would show that the due date of premium was clearly recorded in the said certificate.  The mode of payment was recorded as half yearly and due dates of payments were recorded as 10^th April and 10^th October every year.  The amount of the premium was also duly recorded in the said plan.  Therefore, on receipt of the aforesaid Membership Certificate, the deceased came to know that he would have to pay half yearly premium of Rs.1500/- by 10^th April and 10^th October every year.  Under the Law of Contract, if one party to the contract fails to perform his part of the obligation, the other party also stands relieved from his corresponding obligation under the contract.  Therefore, since the deceased failed to make timely payment of the premium, the respondent cannot be compelled to perform its part of the contract by making payment under the policy taken by the deceased despite he himself having failed to perform his part of the contract, which required him to pay half yearly premium by 10^th April and 10^th October every year.  For this reason alone, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted with.

6.      The case of the respondent is that the terms and conditions attached to the policy taken by the deceased clearly stipulated that only a grace period of 15 days would be available for payment of premium and in case it was not paid within the grace period of 15 days, the benefit under the policy would not be available to the insured.  The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid terms and conditions were not supplied to the deceased and therefore, he could not have known that in the event of default, the accidental benefit will not be available to his nominee.  I however find no merit in the contention.  If the terms and conditions were not made available to the insured as is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he ought to have asked for the said terms and conditions on receipt of the Membership Certificate.  There is no evidence of the deceased having asked for the terms and conditions applicable to the insurance policy taken by him.  In the absence of such a communication, it can be safely inferred that the terms and conditions attached to the said policy were made available to him and that was the reason, he did not ask the respondent to supply the same to him.  In any case, as noted earlier, the due dates of payment as well as the amount of half yearly premium were recorded in the Membership Certificate received by the deceased.  Though it is alleged to have been received on 05.07.1996, the deceased having expired much later on 06.01.1997, he knew that a default had been made by him in timely payment of the half yearly premium.  Despite that he expressed no grievance about the Membership Certificate having not been sent to him in time nor did he claim that he did not know the due dates for payment of half yearly premium.  He did not even ask for the terms and conditions applicable to the insurance policy taken by him.  This is yet another circumstance clearly indicating that the deceased knew very well as to what the due dates of premium were and what were the consequences of not making timely payment of the said premium.   In fact even after 05.07.96, the deceased did not pay the overdue amount immediately and committed a further default by not paying the installment of 10.10.96, in time.

7.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission.  The revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is therefore dismissed.