National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Branch Manager, Life Insurance ... vs C.P. Sinha on 27 November, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2613 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 03.05.2012 in First Appeal No. 18 of 2007 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna) Branch Manager (Legal) Life Insurance Corporation of India Patna Branch-III, Jeewan Deep, Exhibition Road, Patna 800001 Also At : Life Insurance Corporation of India Through its Secretary (Legal) H-39, New Asiatic Building, 1st floor, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 ... Petitioner Versus C.P. Sinha SFA-2/1, Bhoot Nath Road, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna-80 ... Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Bhalla, Advocate Pronounced on : 27th November, 2012 ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. On 31.1.2002, Mrs. Sudha Kumari Sinha, the deceased assured had paid a first premium amount of Rs.3385/- to the LIC-petitioner for a policy of Rs.1 lakh. After a period of 2 months and 25 days of paying the first premium amount, Mrs. Sudha Kumari Sinha passed away on April 25, 2002. The complainant, Gaurav Pratik is her minor child, who filed the complaint through C.P. Sinha.
Shri C. P. Sinha requested the insurance company to issue duplicate policy. The complainant also made a claim for the death of his mother on 9.7.2003. He also sent reminder on 24.11.2003 but the same did not produce the desired result.
2. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service for non-payment of death claim.
The District Forum accepted the claim and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant within two months from the date of communication of the order and to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation, failing which the insured amount will be recovered through legal procedure with interest @9%.
3. The LIC filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide order dated 3.5.2012.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. He contended that there was no concluded contract between the deceased and the petitioner. Again, the proposal of the deceased-respondent was never accepted by the insurance company and as such the policy bond was not issued to the proposer in her life time.
The agent of the LIC had deposited a sum of Rs.3385/- but the proposal form was not submitted by the agent or the proposer herself during her lifetime. Consequently, the question of acceptance of proposal of issuance of policy and bond of the proposer did not arise. It was however admitted that cheque was issued for a sum of Rs.3385/- and the same was returned on15.10.2005 as refund of the unused first premium amount during the pendency of the complaint in the District Forum which the complainant refused to receive the same. The agents are not authorized to accept the premium amount from the policy holder or any other person under the terms of agency and if any person gives the money, they do it at their own peril and the LIC cannot be held liable for such act of the agent or the proposer. In order to buttress his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited few authorities which are reported in Branch Officer, LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Kanchanben H. Shah & Ors.
II (1994) CPJ (NC), LIC of India & Anr.
Vs. Smt. K. Aruna Kumari III (1995) CPJ 80 (NC), LIC of India vs. Mrs. Bimala Routray II (1993) CPJ 146 (NC), LIC of India vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1014, LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Smt. Mumtaj Begum I (1993) CPJ 9 (NC), LIC of India vs. Gita Sharma II (2010) CPJ 231 (NC), Kolla Vijaya Laxmi vs. LIC of India and Anr. I (2010) CPJ 137 (NC), Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. LIC of India & Anr. II (2002) CPJ 123 (NC).
5. We have gone through these authorities. These are not applicable to the facts of this case. The facts in each case are different. The facts of this case are peculiar and unique. The opposite parties are not permitted to act arbitrarily.
6. In this case, it is clear that a cheque of Rs.3385/- for first premium was received by the agent of LIC and it was deposited in the office of the LIC. The said amount was returned after about 2 years and 9 months. The LIC has failed to give any lucid explanation as to why the cheque was withheld for a period of 2 years and 9 months. The LIC did not take action. The moment LIC had accepted the cheque, it should have returned the cheque to the deceased or written that is cheque stood accepted and fill up the proposal form.
It is well known that the LIC grants insurance cover after acceptance of money. The insurance starts the moment the cheque is accepted. If there is no irregularity or the facts are admitted by the LIC, it cannot be turned around and discard the proposal after a lapse of more than two years. All these facts go to show the mala fides on the part of the LIC. It cannot cheat the gullible persons with the help of few authorities, which are not applicable in this case. The return of the cheque after about 2 years and 9 months, smacks of malafides on the part of the LIC. Decision in such like cases must be taken immediately.
The delay in such matters rather casts a flim of doubt over the integrity of the officers involved in this case. It is also surprising to note that no action was taken against the agent. It was the duty of the agent to give LIC cover immediately after acceptance of the amount. It is also surprising to note that the agent did not inform the LIC about the death of the proposer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that they could not send back the cheque to the petitioner because the LIC did not know his address. This argument leaves no impression upon us and it should have called the agent and enquired the address from him. The purpose of law is to prevent the strong already having their way.
7. In the result, we see no merit in the revision petition and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-.
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER Naresh/reserved