State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India, ... vs Andhavarapu Bhagya Laxmi, Srikakulam, ... on 15 May, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD. F.A.No.405/2012 against C.C.No.78/2010, Dist. Forum, SRIKAKULAM. Between: Life Insurance Corporation of India, Narsannapeta Branch, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District, rep. by its Authorized Signatory T.K.Balkrishna S/o.Thirupalappa, Age: 58 years, Occ:Asst. Secretary ( L & HPF) , South Central Zonal Office, Saifabad, Hytderabad. Appellant/ Opp.party And Andhavarapu Bhagya Laxmi, W/o.Andhavarapu Kameshwara Rao, Age: 50 years, Occ:Household, R/o.Plot no.4, Prasanthi Nagar Colony, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. Respondents/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.K.Venkatesh Guptha. Counsel for the Respondent : respdt. is rep. by her son in law Mr.Srinivasa Rao QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT And SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member).
*** This appeal is directed against the order dt.
8.2.2012 of the District Forum, Srikakulam made in C.C.No.78/2010 filed by the respondent/complainant seeking direction to the opposite party to renew the complainants Bhima Kiran policy and to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.
The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.78/2010. For the sake of convenience , the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is as follows:
The complainant has taken Bhima Kiran policy (without profits) bearing policy no.690896045, Table and Term 111-27 on 28.3.1996 from the opposite party and the yearly premium is Rs.1280/-. The complainant has been paying the premiums regularly without any default till 3/2003, but subsequently, due to financial and health reasons, she could not pay the premiums from March,2004 till the date of filing of the complaint. On 21.12.2009, the complainant approached the opposite party branch and expressed her willingness to continue/renew the policy by paying premiums with interest upto date. After verifying the policy terms and conditions and also medical certificate issued by authorised doctor of the opposite party for the said purpose, the opposite party issued an ordinary revival quotation on 21.12.2009, directing the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.10,001/- towards premium from 3/2004 to 3/2009 including the late fee and immediately the complainants husband issued a cheque bearing no.386841 dt. 21.12.2009 for Rs.10,001/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Srikakulam branch towards net RVEL amount of the above said policy. But the opposite party did not accept the same and returned the said cheque to the complainant due to the reasons best known to them.
Hence, there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party in discharging their duties. Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, the opposite party filed counter/written version admitting the fact that the complainant took a policy from their branch and that she paid the premium upto March 2003 and thereafter failed to pay premiums on the policy. The opposite party contended that the complainant reported to have approached their Srikakulam branch on 21.12.2009 with a request for revival of the policy after completion of 5 years 8 months and 23 days and a quotation was issued for revival on 21.12.2009, casually, without noticing the rule that the policy cannot be revived beyond 5 years. Subsequently, the complainant has submitted the requirements on 21.12.2009 and the Branch has observed that the policy has lapsed for more 5 years and hence denied renewal of the policy, after explaining the reasons to the complainant. The opposite party denied receipt of cheque bearing no.386841 dt. 21.12.2009 for Rs.10,001/- said to have been sent by the complainant to their branch office at Srikakulam. Thus there is no negligence on their part but acted bonafidely with due care and accordingly the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The complaint is also barred by limitation The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.
During the course of enquiry, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 . On behalf of the opposite party, the Manager of their Narasannapet Branch filed his evidence affidavit. No documents were filed by the opposite party, in support of its contention.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund the entire premium amount paid by the complainant, with benefits due, without any deduction, within 2 months, failing which, the complainant is entitled for interest at 9% from the date of complaint till the date of realisation. The opposite party is further directed to return the cheque bearing no.386841 dt. 21.12.2009 for Rs.10,001/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Srikakulam branch, to the complainant. The opposite party was further directed to pay costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred the above appeal urging that the order of the District forum is contrary to law and opposed to evidence on record and probabilities of the case. That the District Forum erred materially in granting relief, which is not sought for by the complainant. It is specifically denied by the opposite party that the cheque was not received by the Corporation as alleged by the complainant. That being the case, in the absence of any acknowledgement produced by the complainant, the District Forum should not have directed the opposite party to return the cheque bearing no.386841 dt. 21.12.2009 for Rs.10,001/-, drawn on Union Bank of India, as the said direction would be impossible of performance. That the District Forum materially erred in not taking into consideration that merely because the personnel at the counters issued quotation for revival of the policy, beyond five years, contrary to the rules, the same cannot give any absolute right to the complainant to have the policy revived beyond five years contrary to the rules. In view of the contention of the opposite party corporation that they have not received the cheque in question from the complainant, the complainant ought to have filed the document in proof to show that whether the cheque was encashed or not by the Corporation. If the cheque is not encashed within the prescribed time, the corporation would not get any benefit and no purpose would be served by keeping the cheque with them. If really the cheque was with them, they would have certainly returned the same to the complainant. The appellants finally prayed for setting aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record including the written arguments filed by both the parties.
Now the point for consideration is whether impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact that the complainant obtained policy no. 690896045 with the plan term 111-27, with the commencement date 28.3.1996, with yearly premium of Rs.1280/-.
It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had paid premiums only upto March, 2003 and subsequently no premium was paid and hence the policy became lapsed.
It is the case of the complainant that in the month of December,2009 she approached Narsannapet branch and on her expressing willingness to renew the policy, revival quotation was issued for Rs.10,001/- and accordingly she issued a cheque for the said amount and however the policy is not renewed .
The contention of the appellant/opposite party corporation is that the cheque was not received by the Branch Office and that the policy was in lapsed condition for more than 5 years. Hence the policy cannot be revived beyond 5 years. Due to oversight, the personnel at counter, without noticing the rule position that the policy cannot be renewed beyond 5 years, issued the quotation.
The complainant did not adduce any evidence or produce any acknowledgement to the effect that the opposite party had received the cheque in question.
Absolutely there is no evidence, to show that the complainant offered the cheque and the opposite party did not accept the same, as contended by the complainant. It is also not the case of the complainant that the Corporation had encashed the cheque and failed to renew the policy. The District Forum should not have directed the opposite party to return the cheque bearing no.386841 dt.
21.12.2009 for Rs.10,001/-, drawn on Union Bank of India, as the direction would be impossible of performance as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party.
It is not in dispute that as per the rules, the policy cannot be renewed beyond 5 years. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party that merely because the personnel at the counter issued quotation for revival of the policy beyond 5 years contrary to the rules, the same cannot give any absolute right to the complainant to have the policy revived beyond 5 years contrary to the rules.
Admittedly the premiums were not paid by the complainant from 3/2004 and as such the policy was in a lapsed condition by the year 2009, when the complainant is said to have approached the Corporation. Therefore, it is evident that the risk of the of the complainant was covered during the period from 3/96 till 3/2003. It is well settled preposition of law that insured cannot be given advantage of risk coverage and also refund of premium. That being the case, the complainant is not entitled for coverage of risk during the subsistence of the policy and to seek refund of the premiums, when the policy lapsed for the reason of non payment of the premiums. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the entire premiums. Infact, the complainant did not seek any relief for refund of the premiums paid by him in the complaint.
He sought only three reliefs in the complaint which are as follows:
a). direct the opp.party to renew the complainants Bima Kiran Policy (without profits) bearing Policy No.690896045, table and term 111-27 from 3/2004 to up to date.
b). direct the opp.party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing inconvenience, mental agony and pain to the complainant.
c). to direct the opp.party to pay costs of the complaint.
It is therefore obvious that the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund the entire premium amounts paid by the complainant with benefits due without any deductions within two months, which is not sought for by the complainant in the complaint. Therefore, the District Forum erred materially in directing the opposite party to refund the entire premium amount with benefits due and without any deductions which is against contractual obligations and which is not sought for by the complainant in the complaint.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not renewing the policy. We are of the firm view that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside.
In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. The complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 15.5.2013