State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Senior Divisional Manager,L.I.C. Of ... vs Sakti Prasad Mishra & Others on 20 February, 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.606 OF 1996 From an order dated 27.07.1996 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kendrapara in C.D. Case No.125 of 1996 Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Cuttack Divisional Office, At- Jeevan Prakash, Post Box No.36, P.S- Mangalabag, P.O & Dist- Cuttack, represented by Narayan Chandra Rath, Manager (Legal & H.P.F), L.I.C. of India, Cuttack Divisional Office, At- Jeevan Prakash, Post Box No.36, P.S- Mangalabag, Town/Dist- Cuttack. Appellant -Versus- 1. Sakti Prasad Mishra, At/P.O- Pikrali, P.S- Patakura, Dist- Kendrapara. At present C/o. Tapaswini Tripathy, C.H.C. Campus, Marsaghai, At/P.O- Marsaghai, Dist- Kendrapara. 2. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Tinimuhani, Dist- Kendrapara. 3. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Phulbani Branch, At/P.O/Dist- Phulbani. Respondents. For the Appellant : M/s. A.K. Mishra & Assoc.. For the Respondents : M/s. L. Samantray & Assoc. P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SMT. BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER. O R D E R
DATE:-
20TH FEBRUARY, 2007.
The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Cuttack-1, opposite party No.3 has filed this appeal challenging the orders dated 27.07.1996 of the District Forum, Kendrapara in C.D. Case No.125 of 1996 against the complainant and opposite party Nos.2 and 3 of the C.D. Case as respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant / respondent no.1 while working as a Paramedical worker at the Primary Health Centre at Khajuripada, Dist- Phulbani entered into L.I.C. policy No.60467194 dated 23.10.1981/06.11.1981 for a sum of rupees 20,000/- for payment of quarterly premium at Phulbani Branch. He deposited quarterly premium regularly upto August, 1987. After he was transferred to the Leprosy Eradication Unit, Kujanga, Dist- Cuttack, he requested opposite party No.2 to transfer his policy to the Kendrapara Branch. Phulbani Branch Office also transferred said policy to Kendrapara Branch vide letter No.60467194. Memo of transfer is dated 08.02.1988. The Kendrapara L.I.C. Branch office is not receiving premium on the ground that it has not received the policy under transfer. According to him, none of the Branches are receiving premium and taking responsibility in respect to his policy during last seven years.
Therefore, he filed the C.D. case to get assured value with other benefits.
3. The opposite party No.1 / respondent No.2 was ex-parte in the District Forum.
4. The stand of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 as per their written version in brief is that, being requested by the complainant, opposite party No.2 had transferred the Branch File relating to said policy as per letter Ref:
P.S/Trans/ out/SKS dated 08.02.1998 to Kendrapara Branch with intimation to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 had acknowledged the D.O. Docket on 24.02.1988 sent by him and opposite party No.3. But, as the opposite party No.1 (Kendrapara Branch Office) returned back the Branch file relating to the policy on the ground that the lapsed policy cannot be transferable, opposite party No.2 received the file on 01.03.1988.
These opposite parties have fairly admitted in sub-para of para 6 in their written version that; The policy is paid up condition. However, they pleaded that in spite of intimation about all these developments, the complainant did not intimate opposite party No.2 as to whether he wants to revive the policy or to take payment of the legitimate dues under the lapsed policy. Thus the opposite parties have claimed for dismissal of the C.D. case.
5. Taking into consideration the case of both the parties as narrated above, the District Forum observed that in view of opposite party No.2s aforesaid letter of transfer of policy dated 08.02.1988, complainant was expectant that he would be intimated about the transfer of his policy to Kendrapara Branch. But, opposite parties have not intimated him about return of the policy file of the complainant, as a result of which he was deprived of payment of subsequent premium or to revive the policy. Thus, the District Forum held opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and particularly opposite party No.2, as deficient in service. Therefore, the District Forum vide its aforesaid order dated 27.07.1997 allowed the C.D. case and directed opposite party No.2 to pay to the complainant paid-up value of the policy with interest @15% per annum w.e.f. 06.11.1987 till the date of final payment as compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials in the record.
7. The appellant has assailed the aforesaid orders of the District Forum as illegal, perverse and bad in law because, such a order has been passed by the District Forum without arriving at a specific finding that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.
Further, due to non-payment of value of policy or non-revival of the policy, as the policy stands lapsed, the complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Moreover, in the case of the lapsed policy when complainant is entitled only to surrender value, the District Forum is erred into Insurance Policy Rules by directing opposite party No.2 to give paid up value the policy of the complainant having been lapsed before it was matured on 05.01.2011.
8. It is not disputed that aforesaid policy period is from 06.11.1981 to 05.01.2011. It is also not disputed that premium in respect to said policy would be deposited at quarterly interval and complainant has paid quarterly premium lastly by August, 1987. According to policy condition No.2, payment of premium if quarterly premium is not paid before the expiry of the days of grace i.e. of one month but not less than thirty days from the due date, the policy lapses. According to Condition No.3, if the policy has been lapsed, it can be revived by the assured within a period of five years from the date of the first unpaid premium and before the date of maturity of the policy. Now, therefore, following questions arise in this appeal :-
(1) Whether due to the latches of the insured complainant, the policy lapsed ?
a n d (2) Whether complainant is entitled to surrender value ?
9. Coming to the aforesaid first point, we have no hesitation to agree with the District Forum that when opposite party Nos.2 and 3 were duty bound to intimate about return of policy file on the ground that it was lapsed by Kendrapara Branch, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have caused serious negligence and deficiency in service to the complainant. Admittedly, opposite party No.2 received the policy file on 01.03.1988. Had he intimated about this to the complainant and complainant had not taken proper steps for revival according to policy condition in time, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 could have been safely escaped from liability. It is realized that the complainant was kept in darkness for about eight years till the C.D. case was filed in respect to the actual condition of his policy. In this end of the view, the complainant had no opportunity either to deposit the quarterly premium or to revive the policy on deposit of arrear premium dues with interest at a time, which is quite impossible being a paramedical worker of a Primary Health Centre. The District Forum has not lost sight of this also. Therefore, the complainant is no way responsible for the lapse of the policy and opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have caused deficiency in service to him.
10. In respect to aforesaid second point for consideration policy condition No.4 denotes that if after at least three full year premiums have been paid and subsequent premium is not duly paid, the policy shall not be void wholly and policy becomes paid up. In the instant case, quarterly premium having been paid up to August, 1987, after the policy dated 06.11.1981, it is a paid up policy to which complainant is entitled for. So question of payment of surrender value to complainant does not arise. In second para of para-6 of the written version, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 admit that complainant is entitled to paid up policy. Thus, we find there is no justifiable grounds for the appellants to assail the aforesaid orders of the District Forum, which is appropriate and lawful.
11. In the result, we find there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed on contest without costs. The impugned orders dated 27.07.1996 of the District Forum is hereby confirmed.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.