State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Sunil Dahiya on 6 August, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
IN
THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Appeal
against the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by District Forum-III Janakpuri, New Delhi in complaint case no
1039/2007)
Date
of Decision : 06.08.2010
Appeal
No. FA-08/1079
Life Insurance
Corporation of India,
Divisional Office-I,
Jeevan Parkash Building,
25, K.G. Marg, New Delhi
Through Shri R.K. Srivastava, Manager
(L&HPF)
.. Appellants/OP
VS
Shri Sunil Dahiya,
R/o
Village-Khurampur,
Post
Office-Borana,
District-
Sonepat,
Haryana.
Master
Manish Dahiya
Minor
through respondent-1 being
Natural
guardian and father of the
Minor
R/o
Village-Khurampur,
Post
Office-Borana,
District-
Sonepat,
Haryana.
..Respondents/complainants.
CORAM
Justice B.A. Zaidi,
President
Mrs. Salma
Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Mrs. Salam Noor, Member
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in complaint case no. 1039 of 2007 whereby the District Forum has saddled the appellant Life Insurance Corporation with the liability to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- under Jeevan Mithra Policy alongwith Rs. 5,000/- towards compensations and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant No. 1 Shri Sunil Dahiya and his wife Smt. Aman Dahiya had taken Jivan Mithra policy no. 331676781 Double Endowment Policy for the sum assured i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five lacs) each from O.P.- Insurance Company and the date of commencement of the risk under the above policy was from 28.05.2006 and the premium of the above policy had been regularly paid. This policy was a period of 16 years and as such the date of the maturity of the above policy was 28.5.2022. One of the term of the above policy is that in case of death before the date of maturity the LIC of India (OP) is liable to pay to the nominee double the sum assured and bonus. During the continuation of the above Jeevan Mithra policy, Respondents /complainants wife had committed suicide on 11.07.2007 and consequently Shri Sunil Dahiya filed a claim in the office of OP-Insurance Company with relevant documents. His claim was however, repudiated by LIC on the ground that death due to suicide took place after nine months 18 days from the date of F.P.R. (First premium received) and so the suicide clause was applicable and nothing was payable under the above policy. Hence complainant no. 1 filed consumer complaint in the District Forum .
3. LIC filed written statement and contested the consumer complaint. Counsel for LIC pleaded that first premium for Jeevan Mithra policy was accepted on 23.09.2006, that the policy was issued on 23.09.2006 and as such the risk under the policy commenced only from 23.09.2006. He submitted that the date of commencement of policy and the date of commencement of risk mentioned in the Jeevan Mithra policy as 28.05.2006 has not to be taken as correct, therefore, complaint should be dismissed.
4. On considering the affidavits and documents placed on record the Ld. District Forum disagreeing with the LICs contention allowed the complaint and directed the LIC to pay Rs. 10 lacs the sum assured with interest, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the award passed by the District Forum the LIC has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard Ms. Jaya Tomer, counsel for appellant and Mr. Lalit Kumar counsel for respondent. There was no dispute between the parties that in Jeevan Mithra Policy, a copy of which is exhibit CW1/B, against the column Policy No. and date of commencement/ date of commencement of risk, the date given is 28.05.2006. While the date of maturity is given as 28.05.2022. It was also not disputed that in the document exhibit CW1/B(Jeevan Mithra Policy) in case of death before the date of maturity double the sum assured plus bonus was to be paid.
6. The only contention raised before us and strongly agitated by the counsel for appellant, is what should be held to be date of commencement of risk under the policy. Weather date of commencement and the date of commencement of risk should be taken as 28.05.2006. Counsel for appellant pleaded that first premium for Jeevan Mithra Policy was accepted on 23.09.2006, that the policy was issued on 23.09.2006 and as such the risk under the policy commenced only from 23.09.2006, she submitted that the date of commencement and the date of commencement of risk mentioned in the Jeevan Mithra Policy as 28.05.2006 has not be taken as correct.
7. There is no dispute between the parties that if we take the date of commencement of the risk as 28.05.2006, respondents claim has to be paid by the appellant on account of suicide by Smt. Aman Dahiya on 11.07.2007, being after one year from the date of commencement of policy but in case the date of commencement of the policy is deemed to be date on which first premium was paid i.e. 23.09.2006 respondents claim is not payable on account of suicide clause in the policy, which states, that in case the insured commits suicide within one year of commencement of the policy the sum assured was not payable.
8. We do not agree with the submission of Ms. Jaya Tomar, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. May be the first premium was paid under the policy on 23.09.2006 but proposal was accepted and risk commence with effect from 28.05.2006. If we go by the first column of the schedule of Insurance Policy that the date of commencement of the policy and the date of commencement of risk was 28.05.2006, the proposal is deemed to have been accepted on 28.05..2006 and not from the date when policy was issued ie. 23.09.2006. Policy may have been issued subsequently after a few days but proposal stood accepted from date of proposal as mentioned in the Policy. The date of proposal and the date of commencement of risk must always be one and the same. Date of policy and date of commencement of risk of the policy cannot be two different dates.
9. We are of the clear view that in Jeevan Mithra Policy (exhibit CW1/B) risk commenced from 28.05.2006 and not from 23.09.2006 as is the stand taken by the counsel for appellant. Once it is held, that date of commencement of risk under the policy was 28.05.2006, the suicide committed by life assured being 11.07.2007, it was beyond one year period and therefore, clause no. 7 would not be attracted and LIC will have to honour the policy.
10. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Ramdayal & Ors. -reported in 1990 SCC (Cri) 432, Apex Court has held that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness is from the commencement of that date. Applying this ratio of the Honble Supreme Court, the policy in question having been taken on 28.05.2006 (which is the commencement date) as mentioned in the Jeevan Mithra Policy, the risk must be held to have commenced from 28.05.2006 itself and not from 23.09.2006 as argued by the Appellants counsel.
11. Thus, viewed from any angle the order passed by the District Forum is quite justified, proper and sustainable in law. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal filed by the LIC.
12. The appeal stands dismissed. Appellant to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent as cost.
13. FDR, if any deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
14. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and copy of order be sent to the District Forum concerned and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Justice B.A. Zaidi) President (Mrs. Salma Noor) Member sk