Chandrika
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Mathrubhoomi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd.

Divisional Manager

Senior Divisional Manager
...........Respondent(s)





ORDER





The case of complainant is as follows: The husband of complainant was a subscriber of Mathrubhoomi and also a member of the insurance scheme for the subscribers. He died on 30.3.2000 due to road traffic accident. Subsequently the nominee applied for the claim. But it was not honoured. In the reply received from 3rd respondent it was stated that on 17.3.2000 the policy was expired and the new policy commenced on 31.3.2000. As per the policy the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence this complaint.

2. The averments in the counter of first respondent are as follows: It is incorrect to say that the deceased Lohithakshan was a member of insurance scheme on 30.3.2000. He was not a member at that time. The insurance scheme was introduced as a part of their Platinum Jubilee Celebrations and the subscribers will be members of the scheme as per the conditions stipulated in the scheme without accepting any money. As per the conditions the coverage of the policy was one year from 18.3.97. The right to renewal completely vested with the first respondent. The husband of complainant was a member and he got the insurance coverage till 17.3.98. On 17.3.2000 the policy was lapsed and new policy was issued on 31.3.2000. At the time of death of husband of complainant the policy was not in existence. So the complainant is not entitled for any benefits.

3. In the additional counter of first respondent it is stated that as per the scheme if any member dies the claim with relevant documents to be submitted within 30 days from the date of death. But it was not done. So also the complainant is not entitled for compensation.

4. The counter of respondents-2 and 3 is that these respondents have issued a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy covering the risk of subscribers of Mathrubhoomi for a period from 18.5.97 to 18.3.98 and it was renewed by first respondent in 1998 and 1999. The 1999 policy was expired on 17.3.2000. After that Mathrubhoomi has renewed the policy on 31.3.2000. The husband of complainant died on 30.3.2000 and at that time there was no policy covering the benefit of the complainant. On 31.12.2000 the claim of complainant was repudiated on the ground that there was no policy at the time of accident. No deficiency in service is committed by these respondents. Hence dismiss the complaint.

5. The points for consideration are:-
(1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.

6. The evidence consists of Exts. R1 to R14 and the testimony of RW1. No evidence adduced by the complainant.

7. Points-1 & 2: The complaint is filed for getting the death claim of the husband of the complainant and also for compensation. The averments in the complaint are that the husband of complainant was a subscriber of Mathrubhoomi newspaper and also a member of the insurance scheme for the subscribers. He died on 30.3.2000. Subsequently the complainant applied for the insurance benefits but was repudiated the claim since the policy was expired on 17.3.2000 and again commenced on 31.3.2000.

8. The first respondent Mathrubhoomi filed a counter stating that the husband of complainant was not a member of the scheme of 31.3.2000. It is also stated that the period of policy is only for one year and the policy was given from 18.3.97 to 17.3.98 and from 18.3.98 to 17.3.99 and also from 18.3.99 to 17.3.2000. There was no policy covering the date of death.

9. In the counter the Insurance Company stated that a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy was issued for a period from 18.5.97 to 18.3.98 and it was renewed by Mathrubhoomi in 1998 and 1999 and lapsed on 17.3.2000. The husband of complainant expired on 30.3.2000 and there was no policy at that time.

10. According to the complainant, she is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- being the insurance benefit due to the death of her husband. Her husband was died on 30.3.2000. After the death she applied for the claim but was dishonoured by the respondents. Ext. R12 the repudiation letter shows that the Insurance Company is unable to entertain the claim since there was no valid policy at the time of the accident. It is an admitted fact that there was valid policy till 17.3.2000. After that policy was renewed on 31.3.2000. In the counter first respondent stated that on 17.3.2000 the policy was lapsed and new policy was issued from 31.3.2000. Ext. R10 is a letter from Insurance Company to first respondent shows that the policy No.42/761300/00758 which was due for renewal on 18.3.2000 was renewed with effect from 31.3.2000, since the renewal instruction was received from the insured on 31.3.2000.


So it can be seen that the policy was not a new policy but a renewal of the old policy. As per Ext. R4 Master Policy Agreement for those existing and new regular subscribers joining the scheme at later date than 15.3.97 the cover shall be for a period of one year from the date of submission of such list along with the applicable premium by Mathrubhoomi to the complainant. So the existing subscribers will automatically cover the benefits of the policy without any application on the part of subscribers. In the present case the claim was refused by stating non-existence of the policy. Since it was a renewal of the policy no consent is necessary. The case of complainant is that the policy was not a new policy but only a renewal of the policy and she is entitled to get the benefits of the policy.


The first respondent stated that it was not a renewal of the policy but a new policy since there were break of some days. In the counter of first respondent it is clearly stated that the subscribers of newspapers who are desire to join the insurance scheme have to submit application. After 17.3.2000 no advertisement made by the first respondent inviting applications to enter the new policy. If it was a new policy they will definitely invite applications. So also this was not a new policy. The first respondent who was examined as RW1 deposed that new applications were not invited at the second time. He also deposed that new application is not necessary for renewal. So from the Mathrubhoomi itself there is admission that it was a renewal of old policy.

11. There was a short gap in between the disputed policy and earlier policy. The first respondent also deposed that there was a gap. According to the Insurance Company at the time of death of the husband of complainant there was no policy since premium was accepted on 31.3.2000. There was a short gap as admitted by RW1. In 2009(2)CPJ Page 282 the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the renewal of policy means continuation of old policy and the break of some days between the expiry of old policy and taking of new policy is not at all relevant and can be considered that it was a renewal of old policy. In the decision it is stated that the word ‘renewal’ would mean continuation from the old policy. Had it been the intention of the parties that there is a break in the policy then perhaps the word ‘renewal’ was not the right word to use.

In the present case RW1 admitted that no further application invited and further application is not necessary for renewal. During cross-examination he also stated that they were not aware of the death of Lohithakshan at the time of payment of premium on 31.3.2000. So they paid the premium as usual. In the reported decision of the Honourable National Commission there were break of two days between expiry of old policy and taking of new policy. In that case the National Commission stated ‘renewal’ means continuation of old policy and if it was not the renewal the word ‘renewal’ was not the right word to use. So it can be considered that the period of insurance commenced from 18.5.97.

12. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondents-2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant with cost Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within one month and no order as to compensation.