Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: LIC saving schemes in Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Smt Sumitrabai Wd/O Gangaram Chafale on 19 October, 2012Matching Fragments
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that :-
1. Deceased Sanjay, who was the son of complainant Smt Sumitrabai, was in service of o.p.No.2 MSEDCL as an Electrician. During his lifetime he had taken five insurance policies under Salary Saving Scheme, which was launched by o.p.No.1 LIC. The details of the policies are as under:-
Sl.
No. Policy No. Date of Policy Policy Amount Monthly Premium Bonus Amount 972214357 28.08.1997 35,000/-
2. On 26.02.2006 insured Sanjay died, surviving his mother complainant Smt Sumitrabai, who is also the nominee. Thereafter, the complainant claimed the policy amount by surrendering the policies in the office of LIC. However, LIC issued the cheques totaling to Rs.90,240/- i.e. paid up value only and refused to pay bonus and other benefits.
3. It is submitted that the deceased was never informed either by LIC or MSEDCL about the non-receipt of amount of premiums. It is further submitted that when the policy was obtained under Salary Saving Scheme it was obligatory on the part of the employer i.e. MSEDCL to remit the amount of premiums regularly to LIC and in the event of non-receipt of any premium it was obligatory on the part of LIC to inform the insured. It was not fault on the part of insured and therefore, LIC cannot refuse the benefits of the policies. Therefore, complainant made Consumer Complaint, claiming total amount of Rs.4,80,639/- towards the difference of payment of policies with bonus and interest. She has also claimed Rs.10,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
9. In the case of Basanti Devi (supra) it is held by Honble Supreme Court that under Salary Saving Scheme the employer is acted as an agent of LIC to collect the premium on its behalf and in the case of non-receipt of amount of premium, it is obligatory on the part of LIC to inform the insured, etc. The same observations are also made by Meghalaya State Commission in the case of Maiti Mazar (supra), wherein it is held that under the Salary Saving Scheme it is bounded duty of employer to remit the payment of premium regardless whether salary accrued to employee or not, in case where salary not adequate it is necessary to give intimation to employee necessary. Further in the case of Krishna Devi & Ors. (supra) National Commission held that under Salary Saving Scheme it does not make any difference that the premium was actually not deducted from salary of deceased employee because authority of PSEB as agent of petitioners was both to collect premium on its behalf and then to remit to LIC LIC would be liable to pay out on the policy even if premium had not been paid due to default of employers.