State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, vs T.J.Chitra, on 9 September, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 674/2003 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. 44/2001 of District Kozhikode) Managing Director Vs. P.Kannan and Others BEFORE: Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN PRESIDING MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA Member PRESENT: Dated : 09 Sep 2010 ORDER Disposed as Allowed
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 674/2003
JUDGMENT DATED: 9.9.2010
PRESENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
The Branch Manager, : APPELLANT
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Chittoor Road Branch,
Palakkad,
rep.by the Manager (L& HPF),
LIC of India, Jeevan Prakash,
P.B.No.1133,
Ernakulam
(By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)
Vs.
1. T.J.Chitra, : RESPONDENTS
W/o late Vijayakumar,
C/o O.Thankkavelu,
Valiyashalla,
Govindapuram.P.O.,
Muthalamada,
Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad,
2. G.Sureshkumar,
Development Office,
LIC of India,
Chittoor.
3. S.Vipinkumar, LIC Agent,
Valichalla, Govindapuram.P.O.,
Chittur,
Palakkad,
(By Adv.Afsal Khan, counsel for R1)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the 1st opposite party and respondents 1 to 3 were the complainant and opposite parties 2 to 3 respectively in OP.25/01. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party/LIC of India in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant as nominee of the life assured Vijayakumar. The complainant alleged that her husband Vijayakumar had taken a money back life insurance policy for Rs.25000/- on 15.12.99 from the 1st opposite party by remitting Rs.419/- towards the premium for the said policy. After the death of the husband of the complainant a claim was preferred for the insurance amount, but the same was repudiated by the 1st opposite party, Branch Manager, Chittoor branch, Palakkad. Hence the complaint in OP.25/01.
2. The 1st opposite party, Branch Manager, LIC of India, Chittoor branch, Palakkad filed the written version on his behalf and on behalf of the 2nd opposite party G.Suresh kumar, Development Officer, LIC of India, Chittoor. They contended that there was no concluded contract of insurance as the insurance proposal was not accepted by the 1st opposite party. Thus, the opposite parties 1 and 2 justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim.
3. The 3rd opposite party filed written version regarding payment of the premium for the policy along with proposal and acceptance of the same by the 2nd opposite party Development Officer.
4. Before the Forum below Ext.A1 to A5 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. Exts. B1 to B3 on the part of the 1st opposite party. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.25000/- being the money back life insurance policy amount to the complainant. Hence the present appeal by the 1st opposite party therein.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and 1st respondent/complainant. There was no representation for respondents 2 and 3.
6. The case of the 1st respondent/complainant is that her husband Vijayakumar had taken a money back life insurance policy for Rs.25000/- on 15.12.99 by remitting the 1st insurance premium of Rs.419/-. The definite case of the 1st respondent/complainant is that there was an effective life policy in the name of her husband and that she being the nominee of the life assured is entitled to get insurance amount of Rs.25000/- But there is nothing on record to show that the proposal for the policy submitted by the proposor Vijayakumar was accepted by LIC of India. Ext.B1 series is the proposal for the policy submitted by Vijayakumar. But there is nothing on record to show that the said proposal was accepted by LIC of India. It is a settled position that mere acceptance of the 1st premium for the policy along with the proposal can not be treated as acceptance of the proposal. It is also to be noted that Ext.A1 receipt would not show that the amount covered by A1 receipt was accepted as premium for the policy in the name of the proposor Vijayakumar. The mere payment of the 1st premium along with the proposal form can not be taken as a ground to hold that there was acceptance of the said proposal. In effect there was no concluded contract of insurance between the proposor and LIC of India. The 1st opposite party Branch Manager, LIC of India, chittoor branch, Palakkad is justified in repudiating insurance claim preferred by the complainant. The complainant has not succeeded in establishing her case that there was acceptance of the proposal. The complainant has also failed to substantiate the case that there was a concluded contract of insurance between her husband Vijayakumar and LIC of India. In such a situation, the insurance claim preferred by the complainant can not be allowed.
7. The Forum below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective. The forum below has also failed to consider the case law with respect to the proposal and acceptance of life policy. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporaiton of India vs. Vasi Reddy Komalavalli Kamba and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 1014 that a contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom and offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and acknowledges his acceptance to the person making the offer. It is further held that silence does not denote consent and no binding contract arises until the person to whom an offer is made says or does something to signify his acceptance. Mere delay in giving an answer can not be construed as an acceptance, that acceptance is completes only when it is communicated to the offerer. The general rule is that the contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and communicates his acceptance to the person making the offer. The aforesaid proposition in Raja Vasi Reddy's case has been followed in the subsequent decisions rendered by the High courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the aforesaid proposition has become a very settled position. But unfortunately, the Forum below omitted to consider the aforesaid settled position of law. Hence, this Commission has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP.25/01 and to dismiss the complaint in OP.25/01.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is set aside and thereby the compliant in OP.25/01 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad is dismissed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
ps
[ Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN] PRESIDING MEMBER
[ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA] Member