BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 32/2015
The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Near Bus Stand, Koppal. Represented by The Manager (L & HPF), LIC of India, Divisional Office – 1, J.C. Road, Bangalore 560 002. (By Sri Rajesh Shetty) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Smt. Tahira Begaum, W/o Late Lal Hussain, Aged 42 years, Occ : KEB Employee, B.T. Patil Nagar, Koppal Taluk, Koppal District 583 231. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), O & M Sub Division, GESCOM, Near Lakshmi Talkies, Koppal 583 231. (By Sri H.V. Devaraju) | |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.19.09.2014 passed in CC.No.58/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koppal.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that the husband of the complainant during his lifetime has obtained as much as eight insurance policies from the Opposite Party insurance company and the premium towards the policies were deducted from his salary. The insurance policies are hereunder;
Sl.No. | Policy No. | Sum Assured – Rs. | Monthly Premium-Rs. |
1. | 661164163 | 35,000/- | 164.00 |
2. | 661163336 | 1,00,000/- | 109.00 |
3. | 661183218 | 1,00,000/- | 109.00 |
4. | 661163853 | 50,000/- | 57.00 |
5. | 661055701 | 20,000/- | 68.50 |
6. | 661055958 | 30,000/- | 81.80 |
7. | 661056144 | 50,000/- | 136.70 |
8. | 661091993 | 50,000/- | 271.00 |
| Total | 4,35,000/- | 997.00 |
Such being the case, the husband of the complainant died on 21.11.1998 due to accident while in service. The complainant being the wife and nominee had claimed for assured amount from the abovesaid policies after a lapse of 15 years. After obtaining the said claims, the Opposite Party insurance company settled the claim towards the policy Nos. 661164163, 661163336, 661183218 & 661163853. Being not satisfied with the said settlement of the claim, the complainant approached the District Commission and alleged that the Opposite Party insurance company has not settled the rest of the policy Nos. 661055701, 661055958, 661056144 & 661091993. After issuance of the notice, the Opposite Party appeared through their counsel and contended that the unsettled policies were in lapsed condition, hence, shown inability to settle the claim. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party insurance company to pay the matured amount along with interest at 10% p.a. on the said amount.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is in appeal. Heard the arguments of both sides.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order and the documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed that the husband of complainant Mr. Lal Hussain who was the employee of GESCOM, Koppal district has taken eight insurance policies with an assured amount of Rs.4,35,000/- and paid regular premiums through salary deductions. Such being the case, on 21.11.1998 the husband of the complainant met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. The complainant came to know that her husband obtained insurance policies after a lapse of 15 years and claimed for assured amount. After the claim, the Opposite Party settled the claim of some policies to the tune of Rs.1,84,938/- towards the policy Nos. 661164163, 661163336, 661183218 & 661163853 and denied to settle the rest of the policies as because the policies were in lapsed condition for non-payment of the premium and shown inability to settle the claim. Whereas the District Commission has not appreciated the defence taken by the Opposite Party and allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Party to pay the matured amount with interest without any valid reasons. We are of the opinion that when the policies are in a lapsed condition during the lifetime of the policy holder, the nominee cannot claim for the benefits of the policies. The husband of the complainant had not made any efforts to revive the policies which were in lapsed condition. Hence, after looking at the documents, we found that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in not settling the claim towards lapsed policies. Anyhow, considering the dependency of the complainant and applying the ex-gratia, we suggest the Opposite Party to pay the entire premium paid towards the lapsed policies as the premiums were paid upto 3 years. Accordingly, the Order passed by the District Commission requires modification. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is disposed-of.
The Order dt.19.09.2014 passed in CC.No.58/2013 is hereby set aside and modified as under;
The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay the entire premium amount paid in the lapsed policies bearing Nos. 661164163, 661163336, 661183218 & 661163853 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this Order. Failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.
The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
