State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance ... vs Smt. Rupali Anil Lawanghare on 18 January, 2012
Draft for approval :_
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/00/400
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 18/01/2000 in Case No. 177/98 of District Satara)
1. Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance
Corporation of India
State Divisional Off, Jeevan Tara, Ganpatdas Devi
Path, Satara-2 through Zonal Manager, Western Zonal Office, Life
Insurance Corporation of India, Yogakshem, III
Floor, East Wing, J.B.Marg, Mumbai 21.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Rupali Anil Lawanghare
R/o. 31, Sadashiv Peth, Satara - 2.
2. Amar Anil Lawanghare
R/o. 31, Sadashiv Peth, Satara - 2
3. Ku. Priyanka Anil Lawanghare
R/o. 31, Sadashiv Peth, Satara - 2
4. Shri. Bhikoba Nana Lawanghare
R/o. 31, Sadashiv Peth, Satara - 2
5. The Chief Officer, Satara Municipal Council,
1, Kesarkar Peth, Satara - 2,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
PRESENT:
Mr.J.B. Navlani,Advocate, Proxy for Kusimakar
Kaushik, Advocate for for the Appellant
Respondent-Smt.Rupali Lawanghare present a/w. her
Advocate Mr.Ashutosh Marathe.
ORDER
(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Honble Member ) (1) This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18/01/2000 in Consumer Complaint No. 177/1998 (Smt.Rupali Anil Lawanghare & anr. Vs. L.I.C., Satara) passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (District Forum in short). By way of the said order, District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent/original complainant and directed the appellant/original opponent LIC to pay an amount of `1,45,000/- with admissible benefits under the policies with interest @ 15% p.a. from November 1997 till realization, also amount of `20,000/- towards compensation and `5,000/-
as costs of the litigation.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied by this order, the appellant LIC has preferred this appeal stating that the policies were in lapsed condition at the time of death of life assured and therefore no claim (except paid up value) was payable as per impugned order.
(2) Factual matrix of the case is that one Shri Anil Lawanghare, husband of the complainant No.1 had purchased life policies from the appellant LIC as below :-
Sr.No. Policy No. Sum assured Date of Commencement Date of maturity
1.
94025386 `20,000/-
09/12/1988 09/12/2013
2. 940261159 `25,000/-
09/12/1992 09/12/2012
3. 940262131 `1,00,000/-
15/06/1993 15/06/2008 All these policies were subscribed under Salary Savings Scheme of the appellant LIC with express/explicit agreement to deduct premium amounts on monthly basis by respondent No.5 i.e. Chief Officer of Satara, Municipal Council, employer of the life assured and remit to appellant LIC. Life assured, Shri Anil Lawanghare died on 02/07/1997 due to cancer. The complainants have submitted the claim for settlement under the policies. However, the appellant LIC offered only paid up value of `40,000/- in lieu of full payment as all these policies were in lapsed condition on date of death of this life assured duet to non-payment of premiums effective from December 1996.
Complainant declined to accept the offer of appellant LIC and issued legal notice for settlement of full claims under the policies. On failure of appellant LIC to respond and act on the said legal notice, the complainants filed consumer complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order supra. Therefore, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant LIC.
(3) This is an old matter placed on the Board for hearing and disposal. Appeal was heard finally in the presence of learned advocates of the appellant and respondent No. 1 to 4.
Respondent No.5 preferred to remain absent.
(4) Learned advocate for the appellant LIC submitted that respondent No.5 i.e. employer of the deceased life assured did not deduct the premiums from salary and remitted to appellant w.e.f. December 1996, therefore, claim of the complainant was not payable except to the extent of paid up value as all these policies were lapsed due to non-payment of premiums at the time of death of the life assured on 02/07/1997. In absence of non-receipt of premiums from employer respondent No.5 life assured was duty bound to remit the same to appellant as per authorization submitted by deceased life assured and therefore appellant LIC cannot be faulted with for non-receipt of premiums, as no efforts were made by deceased life assured to ensure deduction/payment of premiums. Condition under these policies and authorization letter absolves the appellant LIC to pursue for non-payment of premiums.
(5) We have perused the record. Deceased life assured was suffering from cancer and was on long leave. Premiums were regularly deducted and paid by the respondent No.5 employer till November, 1996. Thereafter, respondent No.5 sent a cheque for `8,175/-
as arrears of payment to appellant LIC, which was returned as the life assured was expired since then.
Policies under Salary Savings Scheme of LIC is a welfare scheme to facilitate smooth passage of payment of premiums. It is tripartite agreement amongst the parties. Appellant LICs manual on Salary Savings Scheme provides modus vide Para 14 to implement Conditions of payments as contract which reads as below :-
14. Default Intimation :-
When the premium is not recovered consequently for 3 or 4 months, the default intimation should be issued before the 5th default in any case.
This provision itself prohibits appellant LIC to disown the responsibility for not pursuing/monitoring receipt of premiums particularly when there is default in receiving the premiums continuously for months.
Moreover, rendering of service in pursuance of contract as explained in Sec.2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has not been discharged by appellant LIC as contracting party to the tripartite agreement, resulting into deficiency in service.
Therefore, the submission of learned advocate for the appellant LIC disowning responsibility to monitor receipt of premium under Salary Savings Scheme Policies, like the one in the instant case is not tenable and hence we do not agree with this view. In the instant case, respondent No.5, employer failed to deduct and remit the premiums during the leave period of deceased life assured. However, appellant LIC cannot take advantage of this default on the part of respondent employer as observed by Honble Apex Court in :-
(i) Appeal (civil) No.6028/2002 Chairman, LIC Vs. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar,
(ii) III (1999) CPJ 15 (SC) - Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Basanti Devi & Anr.
(6) In the light of these facts and circumstances of this case, we find that there is no merit in appeal and arrive at the conclusion that appellant LIC has rendered deficiency in service to the respondent No.1 to 4.
The impugned order of the District Forum cannot be faulted with. We held accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER (1) Appeal stands dismissed.
(2) Parties to bear their own costs.
(3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 18th January, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER pgg