H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.



Appeal No. 125/2007

Date of Decision 28.07.2009.

In the matter of:



Anup Sharma son of Hans Raj Sharma

R/o Village Kotla, Tehsil & District Una HP.



… … Appellant.

Versus



Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its

Manager, Nangal Road, Una, HP.

… … Respondent.



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting? Yes.



For the Appellant: Mr. Surinder Verma, Advocate vice

Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate.



For the Respondent: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate.



O R D E R



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).



Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance complaint file has also been examined. Admitted facts giving rise to the filing of Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2005 out of which this appeal has arisen are, that Kapil Dev Sharma brother of the appellant was insured in the sum of Rs. 51,000/- with the respondent on 28.3.2004. Premium payable by him was Rs. 681/- every quarter, i.e. on 28th March, 28th June, 28th September and 28th December every year.



2. As per averments made in the complaint and death certificate, copy whereof is at page 22 Annexure C-7, Kapil Dev died on 25.8.2004. He had not deposited the insurance premium due on 28.6.2004. He also did not deposit the same within the extended period of one month and even thereafter alongwith interest till the date of his death, i.e. 25.8.2004 is not disputed between the parties.

3. What falls from the above admitted position is, that on the date of death of the life assured, i.e. late Shri Kapil Dev Sharma, the policy was in a lapsed state. Before his death he had the option to have got the policy revived in terms of the policy bond Annexure R-1. It is not the case of the appellant, that the deceased made any attempt and or had got the policy revived. This was a accident benefit policy, as such complaint was lodged by the appellant claming Rs. 1,02,000/- being the amount due under the policy Annexure R-1 because life assured had died as a result of accident. In addition to this sum, he also claimed Rs. 20,000/- for causing harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards Advocate’s fee. District Forum below after consideration of the material before it dismissed the complaint. In this behalf reliance was placed by the District Forum below on clauses 3 and 5 of the conditions and privileges of the insurance policy which have been extracted in paragraph 8 of the impugned order. Hence this appeal.

4. Mr. Verma learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that the deceased was never informed by the respondent regarding the due date for payment of quarterly installment that was payable in June, 2004 as according to learned counsel it was the duty of the respondent as insurer to have intimated the deceased regarding due date. This was not sent during his life time, per Mr. Verma. Therefore on account of this failure on the part of the respondent, appellant is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint. There being a duty in law to intimate an insured like deceased, Mr. Verma referred to Annexure C-3 as well as Annexure C-4 intimation letters sent by the respondent to the deceased.

5. Annexure C-3 is a letter which bears the postal stamp of Una dated 8.1.2005 and Annexure C-4 is the letter which bears the postal stamp dated 16.10.2004. The policy which was in a lapsed state, and thereafter the contract of insurance stood terminated with the death of the life assured would not stand revived on the basis of these two letters. This is one reason to turn down the submission of Mr. Verma, that in the face of Annexure C-3 and C-4 we should hold that the insurance company should have intimated the deceased regarding payment of quarterly installment that was due and payable in June, 2004.

6. Assuming everything without admitting, that it was the duty of the respondent to intimate the life assured as to when the insurance premium was due and payable, even then on the basis of Annexure C-3 and C-4 no benefit can be derived by the appellant. Reason being that those are addressed to Kapil Dev Sharma who on the date of issuance of these letters has already left for his heavenly abode. That being the position, and also keeping in view the clauses 3 and 5 of condition and privileges of the insurance policy subject to which life assured was insured, we are of the view that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity which may call for interference in this appeal.

7. Though Mr. Verma at this stage on behalf of the appellant submitted that if not the entire amount as claimed, then at least sum assured may be allowed in favour of his client while allowing this appeal. We are unable to accept this submission because rights of the parties are fructified in terms of the policy bond Annexure R-1. That being the position, we find no substance in this plea.

8. No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion while dismissing this appeal order passed by District Forum, Una in Consumer Complaint No. 37/2005, dated 31.1.2007 is upheld, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.



Shimla,

July 28, 2009. ( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.)

President



(Saroj Sharma)

Member.



( Chander Shekher Sharma )

/Karan/ Member.