State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lic & Ors vs Smt. Sayar Kanwar on 18 March, 2010
BEFORE
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH,
RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR
Appeal No. 1439/2002
Life
Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Bima Marg, Jaipur.
Divisional
Manager, Divisional Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jodhpur.
Branch
Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jalore.
..Appellants-Non-applicants
VS
Smt.
Sayar Kanwar W/o Late Shri Nahar Singh, R/o Serna, Tehsil Bhinmal,
Distt. Jalore.
..Respondent-Complainant
Before:
Mr.
G.S. Hora, Presiding Member
Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member Present:
Mr. Punit Gupta, counsel for the Appellants Mr. Siya Ram Choudhary, counsel for the Respondent ORDER Dated: 18.03.2010 PER Mr. G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal arises out of order dated 17.10.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum (DCF), Jalore whereby while accepting the complaint, the Appellant Insurance Corporation was directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 23.8.2001 till the date of payment besides Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation.
Heard the learned counsels.
The Husband of the Complainant had taken a policy under Salary Savings Scheme (SSS) and the premium was to be sent by the Department after deducting the same from his salary. The policy commenced w.e.f. 28.12.1991. It so happened that the premium could not be deposited after June, 1997. As per the Non-applicant Insurance Corporation, the policy had come in a lapsed condition and it was revived on the basis of Declaration of Good Health dated 27.9.1998 and at the time of revival, the outstanding amount along with interest was charged by the Insurance Corporation. The Life 2 Assured (LA) died on 29.5.1999 and thereafter claim was preferred by the Complainant as nominee but the Insurance Corporation was ready to pay a sum of Rs. 24,667/- only instead of paying the full sum assured.
The Insurance Corporation did not accept the claim on the ground that the LA at the time of revival of policy, had suffered from paralysis but he did not disclose this fact in his declaration of good health.
The question for consideration is whether the Appellant Corporation was justified in refusing the entire sum of policy.
Admittedly this is a case wherein the policy was obtained under SSS and due to tripertite agreement, the Department was duty bound to deduct the amount of premium regularly from the salary of the insured and to transmit the same to the Corporation every month. In such matters where the premium was to be sent by the employer, in case of non-receipt of premium, the Corporation should have given notice to the employer as well as to the insured to deposit the premium but from the file, it appears that no notice was ever sent by the Corporation either to the employer or to the employee. In absence of notice, the policy cannot be said to have been lapsed.
The ground of making the part payment of the policy was that the insured suppressed information regarding his health. Surprisingly if the insured had suffered from the paralysis, the fact was very much within the knowledge of the Corporation. Suppression means that the party could not have known the fact without being disclosed by the person concerned. If the insured had been suffering from paralysis which was very much visible, the revival of the policy could have been refused by the Corporation. In our view, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on merits. However, the interest allowed @ 12% per annum is reduced to @ 9% per annum. To this extent, the order of the learned DCF stands modified.
The appeal is disposed of with the above observations.
Member Presiding Member Hira Lal