DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.439 of 05-09-2012

Decided on 17-01-2013

Munni Devi aged about 34 years w/o Late Sh.Uma Kant s/o Late Domodar Parsad r/o House No.702, Beant Nagar, Power House Road, near Rana TCP, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Life Insurance Corporation of India having its Divisional Office: Urban Estate, Phase-I, Dugri, Ludhiana 141002 through its Divisional Manager.

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India having its Branch Office: Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Anil Gupta, counsel for complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that Uma Kant, husband of the complainant has purchased a life insurance policy bearing No.301891966 for getting his life insured under New Bima Gold Policy Table No.179 from the opposite parties on 22.2.2011 and the risk of the life of the insured commenced from 24.2.2011. The insured value of the said policy was Rs.90,000/- with accident benefit rider of Rs.90,000/- and extended term cover benefit was Rs.45,000/-. The date of the expiry of the said policy was fixed as 22.2.2027 and the expiry of extended term was fixed as 22.2.2035. The life insured declared the complainant as his nominee. Sh.Uma Kant, husband of the complainant has purchased the abovesaid policy through Sh.Narinder Kumar, Agent Code No.3987 of the opposite parties. No insurance policy or any other document was issued by the opposite parties to the husband of the complainant. The premium installment was Rs.1586/- that was to be paid quarterly against the said policy. The complainant further alleged that her husband has been paying the premium installments of the said policy regularly through Sh.Narinder Kumar Agent Code no.3987 against the receipts to the opposite parties. Uma Kant, the husband of the complainant died on 29.9.2011 at about 5.00 pm due to heart attack. The complainant being the nominee of Uma Kant lodged her claim with the opposite parties requesting to make the payment of the claim against the said life insurance policy. The complainant handed over all the relevant documents to the opposite parties for finalizing the claim. The complainant has received a letter Ref. No.Claims/BTI/204/25 dated 26.3.2012 from the opposite parties alleging that the policy of Uma Kant, husband of the complainant was lapsed at the time of his death and nothing is payable under the same as per the terms & conditions of the contract. The complainant further alleged that the premium installments were being paid by her husband regularly against receipts to the opposite parties and there remained no question of lapsation of the said policy. Moreover no lapsation notice was ever received by the husband of the complainant during his lifetime. No terms & conditions of the said policy were ever supplied by the opposite parties to the life assured. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of the claim amount under the said policy alongwith interest, cost and compensation.

2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the said insurance policy was purchased by the deceased from them and the policy bond bearing No.301891966 was issued to the deceased insured. The said policy was purchased by the deceased through Sh.Surinder Kumar not through Narinder Kumar. The husband of the complainant died on 29.9.2011 at 12.30 pm and not at about 5.30 pm as per the claimant's statement submitted by the complainant herself vide form No.3783 (R) Claim Form 'A'. The said policy was in the lapse condition at the time of the death of the deceased insured. As such the claim was not payable and hence no claim was paid. The premium due on 22.8.2011 was not paid within the grace period of one month as such the said policy had lapsed on 22.9.2011. The premium was paid on 29.9.2011 at 3.22 pm after the death of the insured. As such at the time of death of the insured, the said policy was in lapse condition. The payment made after the death of the insured is of no consequence. Therefore the claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties due to lapse condition of the said policy at the time of the death of the insured. The insured during his lifetime never got revived his policy.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admitted facts of the parties are that Uma Kant, the husband of the complainant has purchased a life insurance policy bearing No.301891966 under New Bima Gold Policy Table No.179 from the opposite parties on 22.2.2011 and the risk of the life of the insured commenced from 24.2.2011. The insured value of the said policy was Rs.90,000/- with accident benefit rider of Rs.90,000/- and extended term cover benefit was Rs.45,000/-. The date of the expiry of the said policy was fixed as 22.2.2027 and the expiry of extended term was fixed as 22.2.2035. In the said policy the life assured has given nomination in the name of his wife, the complainant. The premium installment was of Rs.1586/- that was to be paid quarterly against the said policy. Uma Kant, the life insured died on 29.9.2011. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties that has been repudiated vide letter Ref. No.Claims/BTI/204/25 dated 26.3.2012.

6. The disputed facts between the parties are that:-

1) Sh.Uma Kant, husband of the complainant has purchased the abovesaid policy through Sh.Narinder Kumar, Agent Code No.3987 of the opposite parties.

2) No insurance policy or any other document was issued by the opposite parties to the husband of the complainant.

3) Uma Kant, the husband of the complainant died on 29.9.2011 at about 5.00 pm.

4) The premium was paid after or before the death of the life insured.

As per the version of the opposite parties the complainant has purchased the said policy from Surinder Kumar not from Narinder Kumar.

The complainant has alleged no insurance policy or any other document was issued to her husband but a perusal of record shows that the policy Ex.R6 that has been issued to her husband is the complete document that includes terms & conditions.

In Ex.R4 of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Certificate of Identity and Burial Or Creamation, in column No.4 it has been mentioned that '(a)Date and Time of Death:-29.9.2011, 12:30 pm; (b)Cause of Death:-Suddenly Heart Failure; (c) Place of Death:- Bathinda Cantt; (d)Duration of illness:-NA-'.

In Ex.R4 in column No.8 it has also been mentioned that '(d)Time and date of burial or creamation:-29.9.2011, 5.30 pm'.

A perusal of Ex.R5 i.e. Claimant's Statement shows that this is the statement given by the complainant, in it is specifically mentioned in clause No.2:-

“2)Particulars regarding the deceased life assured Shri Uma Kant.

(i).....

(ii)Date of Death 29.9.2011 Exact time of death 12.30 pm.”

Hence the submission of the complainant regarding the death of her husband that he died on 29.9.2011 at 5.00 pm is false as per Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 life assured died on 12.30 pm. The declaration has been given to the effect that the husband of the complainant died on 29.9.2011 at 12.30 pm.

The complainant submitted that the premium was paid before the death of insured whereas as per record placed on file vide Ex.C3, the premium was paid on 29.9.2011 at 3:25:5 p.m i.e. after the death of the life assured whereas the deceased was creamated at 5.30 pm and died on 12.30 pm. At the time of the death of the insured, the said policy was in the lapse condition and even then the premium has not been paid in the grace period rather the same has been paid after the death of the husband of the complainant.

If for arguments sake the version of the complainant be considered true that Uma Kant died on 5.00 p.m even then this is not believable as per various rituals prevalent in Indian society, the formalities before cremation are many whereas the time of the cremation was 5.30 p.m and the life assured was not suffering from any such serious disease that needs immediate burial.

7. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file it is concluded that the premium has been deposited by the complainant after the death of the life insured Uma Kant. Thus the opposite parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in case titled Master Dilkhush Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2010(2) CPC 435 wherein it was held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2 (1) (g) & 15-Insurance Claim-Policy lapsed-Insurance company repudiated the claim-

District Forum dismissed the complaint-Hence, this appeal-Premium of policy had become due in the month of January, 2005 not deposited even upto grace period, till February-Premium of policy deposited one day after death of insured-Mere receipt of the premium after the death of the deceased would not revive the contract thus the LIC would not be liable to make the payment of the policy.”

Further the support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mani Ram, 2005 (2) CPC 422 wherein it was held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 12 and 23-Insurance policy-Payment of premium-complainant's son obtained life insurance policy w.e.f 21.8.1995-Insured died in an accident on 2.8.1996-Father of insured filed a claim as nominee of deceased-Claim was resisted on the ground that premium falling due on 28.4.1996 was not paid within time including month of grace ending on 28.5.1996-Complaint was allowed by Distt. Forum and upheld by State Commission and also by National Commission-Order of authorities below not legally sustainable-Since the second premium which was due on 28.4.1996 and was not paid within due date or within one month of grace period the policy had lapsed as per conditions of policy-Insurance Corporation rightly negatived the claim of complainant-Ratio liad down in L.I.C of India V. Dharam Vir Anand, 1999 (1) CPC 10 S.C. Supports the case of Insurance Corporation rather than that of the complainant-impugned orders set aside.”

8. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

17-01-2013

Vikramjit Kaur Soni

President

Amarjeet Paul

Member

Sukhwinder Kaur

Member