National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Branch Manager, Life Insurance ... vs Sri Ranganath on 11 March, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4159 OF 2012 (From the order dated 04.06.2012 in Appeal No. 596/2012 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore) 1. The Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sindhanor, District Raichur. 2. The Manager/Divisional Manger Raichur Both represented by the Manager (L&HPF) Life Insurance Corporation of India DO 1, Jeevan Prakash, JC Road, Bangalore 560 002 Through Shri Balihar Singh Asstt. Secretary (Legal) LIC of India (CO Legal Cell) Delhi H-39, (First Floor), New Asiatic Bldg. Connaught Circus, New Delhi Petitioners/Opp. Parties (OP) Versus Sri Ranganath S/o Late Mahadevappa Adaki R/o Aradakal Village Lingansugur TQ Raichur Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner s : Mr. Pankul Nagpal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate PRONO UNCED ON 11th March, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 04.06.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 596/2012 The Branch Manager, LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Sri Ranganath by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondents mother Smt. Shankaramma obtained LIC policy No. 665061575 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- under New Janaraksha Plan with profits for a period of 16 years commencing from 19.03.2009.
Complainant was nominee and legal heir of his mother. Smt. Shankaramma died on 12.5.2009. Complainant submitted claim before OP/Petitioner, but that was repudiated by letter dated 9.2.2011 on the ground that policy lapsed before death. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint and submitted that life assured did not pay due premium within the grace period and quarterly premium due from December, 2009 was not paid; hence, policy lapsed. It was further submitted that in usual practice, OP in the premium receipt itself shows next date for payment of premium and no separate intimation is required for payment of premium and rightly repudiated the claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission at admission stage against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as policy already lapsed before death of insured, Insurance Co. rightly repudiated claim, but learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. It is admitted case of the parties that complainants mother obtained insurance policy for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 19.3.2009 and quarterly premium was to be paid in March, June, September and December as shown in the policy. Insured died on 12.5.2009.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that premium due in December, 2009 and March, 2010 were not paid and learned Counsel for the respondent could not place any document on record to prove that premium due in December, 2009 and March, 2010 were paid by the insured and in such circumstances, it can be inferred that premium payable in December, 2009 and March, 2010 were not paid. As per clause 2 of condition of the Policy, 30 days grace period was allowed for payment of quarterly premiums and it has further been mentioned that if premium was not paid before expiry of days of grace, the policy lapses. In the present case, payment due in December, 2009 and March, 2010 were not paid within the grace period and in such circumstances, policy stood lapsed after 30 days of premium to be deposited.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that no separate intimation regarding payment of premium and grace period was given which amounted deficiency on the part of petitioner. We do not agree with the submission because in the policy cover itself it has been mentioned that premium was payable in March, June, September and December and in such circumstances, no separate intimation for payment of premium was required. As policy lapsed before death of insured, no claim was payable under the policy and petitioner rightly repudiated the claim, but District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 04.06.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No. 596/2012 The Branch Manager, LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Sri Ranganath and order of District Forum dated 16.02.2012 passed in Complaint No. 82/2011 Ranganath Vs. The Branch Manager, LIC of India & Anr. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k