National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Samar Bahadur Singh vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 24 November, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3623 OF 2009 (From the order dated 24.11.2008 in Appeal No. 115/2007 of the State Commission, UTTAR PRADESH ) SAMAR BAHADUR SINGH .. Petitioner(s) S/o LT. BABU SH. SAMPATI SINGHJI R/O VILLAGE DIGADHARIYA P.O. ARRSINYA BAZAR P.S. SARRPATANHAN DIST. JAUNPUR UTTAR PRADESH Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA .. Respondent(s) BRANCH OFFICE, SHAHGANJ DIST. JAUNPUR THROUGH MANAGER (LEGAL) DIVISIONAL OFFICE HAZAJATGANJ LUCKNOW UTTAR PRADESH BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Petitioner: MR. MAHALING PANDARGE, ADVOCATE Dated 24.11.2009 ORDER
JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH Revision petition, as reported by Registry has been filed with delay of 203 days for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner. The reasons stated in the application are of routine nature i.e. delay in engagement of counsel and illness of petitioner, and revision petition on this ground alone deserves to be dismissed. However, we have gone through the merits of the case also.
Succinctly put, petitioner submitting a proposal to secure insurance policy along-with disability benefit with coverage of insurance for Rs. 1,00,000/- approached insurance company on 08.06.2002. Premium too was paid by petitioner on that day. As ill-luck would have it, petitioner suffered injuries in an accident on 13.06.2002 following which he was hospitalized to receive treatment. Injuries sustained by petitioner allegedly rendered him handicapped and he, accordingly, approached respondent insurance company for payment of assured value under the policy. As despite long waiting, there had been no settlement of claim, complaint was filed with District Fourm. Insurance company while resisting complaint filed by petitioner, acknowledged submission of proposal form and also payment of premium by petitioner on 08.06.2002. Proposal of petitioner for providing insurance coverage was, however, accepted by insurance company on 19.06.2002. During pendency of proceeding before District Forum, both petitioner and respondent filed affidavit of evidence and District Forum, on appraisal of pleadings of parties, finding deficiency on part of respondent insurance company, while accepting claim, saddled insurance company to pay sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to petitioner claimant for damages and expenses incurred over treatment. In appeal that was preferred by insurance company, State Commission finding no good reasons about expenses incurred by petitioner over treatment, modified award of District Forum restricting it to Rs. 1,00,000/- from Rs. 2,50,000/-. Cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded by State Commission. Petitioner finding award passed by State Commission to be inadequate, has sought indulgence of this Commission in revision with host of grievances about State Commission having not given due consideration to the nature of policy and also suffering meted out to petitioner, warranting award of adequate compensation by consumer fora.
In course of hearing of revision on admission, learned counsel for petitioner would draw our attention to a decision of National Commission in the matter of LIC of India & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Rachana Devi in RP No. 702/2003 in which, despite non-communication of acceptance of offer by insurance company before death of the insured, which was unreasonably delayed, National Commission having over-ruled contentions raised on behalf of insurance company accepted complaint directing insurance company to honour the assured sum to deceased. Though contentions are raised by learned counsel for petitioner that even if there was no communication of acceptance of insurance policy to deceased before he died, mere by acceptance of premium and its appropriation by insurance company, the insurance company must be deemed to have acknowledged proposal submitted by insured, for there being a concluded and valid insurance contract between parties. Stretching his submission, learned counsel would urge that since premium was accepted by Corporation without any demur or reservation, the Corporation must be deemed to have waived by its conduct, the formality, if any, of sending its acceptance of proposal. However, we do not feel impressed with the contentions raised, as mere acceptance of premium, its retention and delay in sending communication about acceptance of proposal cannot be considered as an acceptance, as prima facie, acceptance must be communicated to the person making offer. In the case cited at Bar, though acceptance of offer was communicated to the insured belatedly, stipulations were made in policy that it was operative from retrospective effect. Here, we do not have identical situation in case under consideration as not only that neither there was any communication of acceptance of offer to proposal before he suffered injuries nor any stipulation was made in policy document about its operation with retrospective effect.
Hence, ratio of decision of National Commission were quite, in different background. Now, controversy on this issue is no res integra. In view of decision of Honble Apex court in the matter of LIC of India Vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1014, Honble Apex court had occasion to observe therein that:-
Though in certain human relationships silence to a proposal might convey acceptance but in the case of insurance proposal, 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 cannot be construed as an acceptance, as, prima facie, acceptance must be communicated to the offerer .
However, we feel faced with some piquant situation as notwithstanding our finding that there was no valid and concluded contract between parties before petitioner suffered injuries, both fora below have found petitioner eligible for receipt of assured value with some variation of award between District Forum and State Commission. Life Insurance Corporation, however, has not chosen to assail the finding of State Commission before us.
Petitioner had initiated process of securing insurance policy in the month of June, 2002 and since then more than seven months have elapsed. In that view of the matter, we direct that award of State Commission be honoured by insurance company and there being no good ground for enhancement of compensation awarded by State Commission, we accordingly dismiss revision petition on delay as well as on merit, with no order as to cost.
J (B.N.P. SINGH) PRESIDING MEMBER (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Dd/8