State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Surjeet Kaur on 25 January, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 25-01-2007 Appeal No. A-428/2003 (Arising from the order dated 28-03-2003 passed by District Forum(North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No.177/2002) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Appellant Divisional Office No.1, Through Jeevan Prakash Building, Mr. S. Shahi, 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Advocate. NewDelhi-110001. Versus Smt. Surjeet Kaur, Respondent W/o Shri Harbans Singh, R/o Village Jhanda Khurd, Post Office Sardulgarh, District Mansa, Punjab. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) It is another case of repudiation of claim of the insured by the appellant-Insurance Company on highly unjustifiable and unacceptable ground.
2. The deceased insured obtained a Life Insurance Policy from the appellant on 18-07-1997 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the plan of quarterly payment of premium. Unfortunately he met with a road accident on 06-11-1998 and was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital and discharged on 19-11-1998. Thereafter he got treatment in Sama Nursing Home, Sirsa and he died on 11-12-1999 due to illness caused by the posttraumatic problems of the accident. His widow filed claim against insurance policy. But the claim was repudiated on the ground that when the accident occurred at 4.30 P.M. on 06-11-1998 the policy had lapsed as the premium was deposited at 3.00 P.M. i.e. after 12 hours. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that policy was revived after acceptance of the deposit as a valid deposit.
3. Vide impugned order dated 28-03-2003 the District Forum directed the appellant to pay Rs. 50,000/- as amount of Life Insurance Policy along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of policy till payment and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs. 5,00/- as cost of litigation.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Company has preferred this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. What a cruel approach? It was a policy in respect of which quarterly payments were to be made. Had it been a case of lapsed policy there was no question of revival of the policy after the death of the deceased. Policy does not lapse merely because the premium is paid late by 12 hours. Had it been so there would not have been clauses in which the insurance policies confer discretionary powers upon the officers of the Insurance Companies to condone delay of 30 days or 15 days and renew the policy with retrospective effect. If such a concept is allowed in the Insurance Policies then the delayed payment by the consumer within a particular period say 15 days or 30 days cannot form a ground for renewal of policy.
6. Once the policy was revived the claim should not have been repudiated on the ground that policy had lapsed at the time of accident whereas this policy was against the life of the assured and the claim was preferred only after the death of the insured and not in respect of the accident. Otherwise the revival of the policy had no meaning.
7. Another disturbing fact which is highly startling is that it is not a case that premium was deposited immediately after the death of the deceased. It was deposited only after 12 hours of the accident. It was not a case of instant accidental death. Respondent remained in the hospital for 13 days and was discharged on 19-11-1998 and thereafter he was attending to his work. It was only on 11-12-1999 i.e. almost after one year that he died and the Appellant Company used the delay of deposit of premium by 12 hours as ground of repudiation and that too when this deposit was made at the time of accident and not after the death of the deceased.
8. We do not know what kind of officers are manning these Institutions. To work for the interest of an Institution or for a company is one thing. But to become an overzealous and to suffer from the disease of self-aggrandisement and to derive sadistic pleasure in the miseries of the consumers on whose money they are surviving and thriving is abominable thing.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons we dismiss the appeal being highly misconceived, misdirected and frivolous. The appellant shall make the payment of the amount by calculating interest till the date of this order within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
10. In view of the disturbing facts, we order that the amount of compensation shall be recovered from the salary or dues or assets of the then Chief Executive Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India under intimation to this Commission.
11. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
13. Announced on the 25th January, 2007 (Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj