State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... vs Suresh Kumar Pundir on 24 January, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 329 / 2010
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India
through its Divisional Manager having its
Divisional Office at Haridwar Road
Dehradun
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India
through its Branch Manager having its Branch at
200, Civil Lines, Roorkee
District Haridwar
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Suresh Kumar Pundir S/o late Sh. Janak Singh
R/o Village and Post Dhandera
District Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 24/01/2014
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is insurer's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 30 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants - opposite parties to revive the insurance policy of the respondent - complainant after receiving the amount of premium from him and also to pay damages of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent.2
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant had purchased a Jeevan Anand (with profits) (with accident benefit) policy from opposite party No. 2 - Life Insurance Corporation of India, 200, Civil Lines, Roorkee for assured sum on 1,00,000/- on 28.03.2003. The said policy carried yearly premium of Rs. 9,002/-. The complainant could not deposit the premium of the said policy for the year 2008, on account whereof, the policy in question got lapsed. It is alleged that on 28.03.2009, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and requested for revival of the policy, but the policy was not revived. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the policy of the complainant got lapsed on 28.03.2009; that on 28.03.2009, the complainant submitted Form No. 680 for revival of the policy and submitted relevant information with regard to his health; that the complainant stated that he is not suffering from any ailment / disease; that the complainant submitted application for revival of the policy on 08.04.2009 and submitted the certificate dated 02.04.2009 issued by the doctor; that on the basis of the medical certificate and documents submitted by the complainant, he was got medically examined from Dr. Anand Goswami, who in his report dated 24.04.2009, stated that the complainant is suffering from diabetes since last four years and that the disease is uncontrollable; as per the certificate dated 02.04.2009 also, the complainant is diabetic; hence in the above circumstances, the revival of the policy was rejected and that there is no deficiency in the services of the insurance company.
34. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 20.09.2010 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also perused the record.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that on account of non-payment of premium in time by the complainant, the policy in question got lapsed. The grievance of the complainant is that inspite of completing the formalities, the policy was not revived by the insurance company. The insurance company has taken the stand that at the time of revival of the policy, the complainant was got medically examined and he was found to have been suffering from diabetes since last four years and hence the proposal for revival of the policy was rejected.
7. There is report dated 24.04.2009 of Dr. Anand Goswami on record (Paper Nos. 24 to 25), wherein he has clearly mentioned that the complainant is a known diabetic for the last four years and that the disease is uncontrollable. It is a settled law that revival of the insurance policy is not a matter of right and the insurance company can not be forced to revive the policy if any abnormality is found in the health of the proposed life assured or any misstatement or suppression of fact is found in the proposal form submitted for revival of the policy. The complainant has not denied the fact that he is not suffering from diabetes and he has also not adduced any evidence to controvert the report dated 24.04.2009 of Dr. Anand Goswami. Under such circumstances, it can not be said that there was any deficiency in 4 service on the part of the insurance company in not reviving the policy.
8. Learned counsel for the insurance company pressed into service the decision rendered in the case of Ahmedunnisa Begum Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hyderabad; AIR 1981 Andhra Pradesh 50, wherein it was held that the revival of an insurance policy is not a matter of right and it would not automatically follow even after the fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the policy. The revival operates as a new contract and the rights and liabilities do not begin to run until the new terms and conditions are accepted and complied with. It was further held that the revival of a lapsed policy is a privilege or concession granted to the policyholder subject to certain limitations.
9. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Asha Garg and others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India; IV (2009) CPJ 92 (NC), has held that revival operates as new contract and that revival of lapsed policy is not a matter of right and the revival would not automatically follow after fulfillment of policy conditions. It was also held that acceptance of premium and its retention by insurer not ipso facto render the policy revived in absence of acceptance of revival to insured. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of LIC of India and others Vs. Shakuntala Devi and another; IV (2011) CPJ 645 (NC), has held that revival of policy amounts to new contract and fresh declaration is taken at the time of revival of a policy.
10. The District Forum has not properly considered the above facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer 5 complaint per impugned order, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the appeal is fit to be allowed.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 20.09.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 30 of 2010 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K