Sri Rama Chandra Das, President - The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of C.P Act against the OPs to direct them to deposit the premium amount of Rs.8406/- up to date in his policy No.585591467 with interest and to award cost ;and compensation of Rs.5000/- each in his favour.
The complainant case is that he had opened LIC policy No.585591467 under OP No.2 & 3 though OP No.1 the agent who is to mobilise the policy holder and to collect the premium money by providing the money receipt to the policy holders. The OP No.1 regularly received the premium amount from the complainant and provided the money receipt. On 19.6.2013 for the year 2013 and on 24.6.2014 for the year 2014 the OP No.1 received the annual premium from the complainant and provided money receipt and hand receipt respectively and took time to provide the original receipt which created suspicious in the mind of the complainant. On 25-10-2014 complainant got the status report of his policy from the Branch Office and was told by Branch Manager that two installments are not deposited . The complainant charged the Branch Manager as to why no intimation letter was given to him to deposit the money as per the provision of insurance corporation. Therefore the complainant issued the pleader notice to all the OPs but they remain silent. Hence he filed this complaint against the Ops with aforesaid prayer.
The OP No.1 filed the written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable against him. The complainant opened a LIC Policy No.585591467 on 28.6.2004 through him but it is not his duty to mobilise the policy holder, to collect money and provide money receipt to policy holder. He never receive the premium regularly from the complainant and provided money receipt. The allegation made in Para- 3 & 4 of the complaint are all false. He never received premium amount on 19.6.2013 ;and 24.6.2014 from the complainant and provided the hand receipt to him. The complainant opened two policy through him i.e. policy No. 585591467 on 28.6.2004 and policy No.l586760672 on 28.8.2006 but the complainant being the lazy person only has deposited the premium amounts on 27.6.2012 and 03-9-2-11 respectively in those two policies and become defaulter. He ;requested the complainant to deposit the premium in proper time but not deposited the same. The complainant not paid a single pie to him to deposit on his behalf. It is the duty of policy holder to deposit the premium amount in proper time . In the above circumstances he prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The OP No.2 & 3 jointly filed their written version stating that the case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action against them. The allegation in para-1 of the complaint may be true but it is not the duty of OP No.1 to collect money from the complainant and to provide money receipt. The Agents of L.I.C ;are not authorised to collect money / premium amount from the policy holders and to grant receipts to them. Any sort of payment to the agents can not be accepted as payment to the corporation. The corporation does not know if OP No.1 used to receive premium from the policy holder and provide receipt to them. They have no idea if OP No.1 collected/received the premium amount form the complainant at his residence as alleged in Para - 3 & 4 of the complaint. The alleged amount not paid to the account of the corporation. In case of default the corporation is not require to intimate regarding default payment.
There was no cause of action against these OPs and there is no reason to direct these OPs to pay any amount to the complainant with other relives The complaint has no merit against these OPs and needs to be dismissed with costs.
On the above pleading of the parties the following issues needs for discussion ;
Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
2. Whether OP No.1 being the LIC Agent was authorised to collect the premium from the policy holder and provide money receipt to them ?
3. Whether the alleged two hand receipts purported to have been provided by OP No.1 regarding its genuineness can be decided by this Forum ?
4. Whether policy No.585591467 of the complainant which has been lapsed can be revived by OP No.2 & 3 ?
5. To what relive(s) if any ?
In order to prove the case the complainant submitted his evidence on affidavit and relied on the xerox copies of documents filed along with the complaint and on 05.-01-2015. The OP No.1 submitted his evidence on affidavit with no documents. The OP No.2 submitted his evidence on affidavit for him and OP No.3 without any documents.
Findings
Issue No.2 : The complainant in his complaint as well as affidavit stated that OP No.1 use to collect the premium from him and deposit before OP No.2 & 3. But OP No.1 in his written version and affidavit clearly stated that he never collected any money from the complaint towards the premium in the aforesaid policy. The OP No.2 & 3 who are the corporation clearly stated in their written version as well as evidence that the LIC agents are not authorised to collect money/premium amount from the policy holders and to grant receipts to them . They also did not admit the allegation of complaint regarding collect and granted money receipt. As the role and responsibility of an insurance agent, he is to help in promoting and selling insurance product and services to its customers. But no where it is stated that he has to collect the premium amount form the policy holder by granting the hand receipt. Therefore it is clear that the OP No.1 was not authorised by OP No.2 & 3 under whom he was acting as an agent to collect the premium,from the policy holder i.e the complainant.
Issue No.3 : The complaint filed the xerox copy of 2 hand receipts purported to have been provided by the OP No.1. Out of 2 hand receipts one for the year 2013 and another one is for year 2014 . The OP No.1 denied signatures apended in those 2 receipts . Though the complainant has stated in the evidence , that on 19.8.2014 and on 24.6.2014 the OP No.1 provided those 2 hand receipts but these dates are not mentioned in those hand receipts . Moreover in the complaint he has stated in year 2013 a money receipts was given by OP No.1. But he contradicted in his evidence that the hand receipt was given in that year. Providing the genuineness of alleged two receipts needs more evidence which cannot be decided in this Fora. In 2014 (4) CPR 701(NC) Kumari Lama vrs General Manager and others it is held “ it is the duty of District Forum to examine the issue on their own whether they had requisite jurisdiction to deal with the matter “
In the instance case since proving of those 2 alleged hand receipts need more evidence, this Forum has no requisite jurisdiction to deal in this matter.
Issue No.1 & 4 : It is alleged by the complainant that on 25.10.2014 on getting the status report of policy No.585591467 asked the Branch Manager as to why no intimation letter was given to him regarding the non payment of premium which is mandatory by the Insurance corporation. The OP No. 2 & 3 in their written version and evidence at Para- 8 stated that “ In all cases of default the corporation is not required to intimate regarding default payments as claim. As per module 3 of Insurance documents at para – 2. 3. 8 renewal notice at sub clause 2 premium default notice - This notice is sent with in 3 months after the due date reminding the policy holder to pay the premium to prevent the policy lapses. In Sub Para- 3 - Issue of final lapse notice - if the premium is not paid within 6 months of the due date, and the policy is allowed to lapse, this notice is issued to the policy holder requesting him to revive the policy to restore the full insurance cover. In instant case the last date of payment in this policy was on 27.6.2012 and the subsequent date of payment was in June, 2013. But till 28.10.2014 when the status report of policy was obtained by the complainant no premium default notice or final lapse notice was sent to the complainant by OP NO. 2 & 3, demanding him to pay the premium or requesting him to revive the policy. In 2012(1) CPR 287 (NC) National, Insurance Co. Ltd Vs DAV(PG College) Karanpur, Dehradun it is held, “ collection of premium is duty of insurer also ” . In 2012(2) CPR 220(NC) LIC of India and others Vs N Dhanalaxmi it is held “ it is settled law that a lapsed policy can be revived during the life time of the assured only and not after his death.”
From the above 2 decisions we get support that it was the duty of OP No. 2 & 3 to collect the premium from the complainant and to issue
the notices as stated earlier in case of default . But they have failed to do their duties, which is deficiency of service on their part. They can be directed to revive the aforesaid policy of complainant on payment of default charges and premium from the date of its lapse so the complainant is maintainable. Hence we order ;
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part. The OP No.2 & 3 are directed to revive the policy Number-585591467 of the complainant on payment of default charges and the required premium from the date of its lapse within one month from the date of receipt of this order and OP No.2 & 3 jointly & severally to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand) and Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) only to wards compensation and litigation cost respectively to the complainant within the aforesaid period. The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 30th March, 2015
