Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vs Basanti Devi And Anr on 28 September, 1999
However, since the Bank had already undertaken to do so and further it
has deducted the amount of premium for the subsequent period till the month of
April and remitted the same to the account of LIC, it can be safely infer that
the Bank has regularly deducted monthly premium from the monthly salary of
policy holder deceased Anil. But the
some amount of premiums for the aforesaid period i.e. from March 1995 to March
1996 and Dec. 1996 to March 1997 and May 1997 to Aug. 1998 was not remitted to
LIC. When the Bank was acting as an
agent of the policy holder, it was necessary for the LIC to recover the dues
from the Bank by issuing notice and further it was necessary to inform the
policy holder also. Therefore, the
policy holder or his successor cannot be deprived from their rights to get the
amount of policy. It should be noted as
observed by the Honble Apex court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply
Undertaking Vs. Basanti Devi & Anr. reported in 1999 (3) CPR 91 (SC),
that
Employer had taken undertaking to deduct the
amount of premium from the monthly salary of employee policy holder and remit
the same to LIC, thereafter the employee was not aware about the fact that the
employer was not acting as his agent the LIC is liable to pay amount of policy
As stated earlier in this case also there is no
evidence on record to show that the policy holder deceased Anil employee of
the Bank was made aware that his employer is not acting as his agent by
deducting the amount of premium from his salary and remitting the same to the
LIC. Therefore, though the policy was
lapsed, the widow of the policy holder cannot be deprived from claiming the
amount of policy from the LIC.