Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President &
Prof. K. Madhuri Latha, Member
ELSA TONY PHILIP—Complainant
versus
MANAGER, (PS/CLAIMS), L.I.C. OF INDIA & ORS.—Opposite Party
O.P. No. 30 of 1998—Decided on 11.3.1999
Held: With due regard to the nature of the dispute involved in this case it is necessary to advert to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1014 referred to early. There among other things the Supreme Court held that, acceptance is complete only when it is communicated to the offerer. This decision of the Supreme Court makes the position clear that acceptance must be unconditional and the same has to be communicated so far as the contract of insurance is concerned. Mere delay in the acceptance cannot be construed as acceptance. (Para 7)
Therefore, merely because premium is adjusted that cannot be itself imply acceptance. Apart from the same, in the same decision the Supreme Court has observed, contract of insurance would be concluded only when the party to whom offer was made accepts the same unconditionally and communicates acceptance to the person who made the offer. Apart from the same Ext. B1 endorsement itself notes the date 18-4-1995, the same is relied on by the opposite parties as the date of acceptance. No other material is placed to show that at any time before that date opposite parties accepted the proposal. If that is so it can be seen that acceptance itself was after the death of Mr. Tony Philip who had sent the proposal. Then acceptance itself cannot be valid. It is more so as the said acceptance was made before knowing. Mr. Tony Philip expired on 17-4-1995. When the matter is so understood it is clear that there was no acceptance before the death of Mr. Tony Philip as the mere adjustment of the amount of the premium by itself would not amount to acceptance. Then as is already noted mere intention to accept is not sufficient to constitute concluded contract as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 1014 (supra) referred to early to the effect that in insurance contract acceptance has to be communicated. Ext. A2. as has already noted though was issued the same neither can constitute acceptance nor communication of acceptance as the same calls itself as chalan-cum-suspense memorandum. Looking at the question in the context of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. it is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel for the complainant when he urged that. there is concluded contract. Then it is clear that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. (Para 8)
Result : Complaint dismissed.
Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President— complaint for direction to the opposite parties to settle the insurance claim of the complainant and also for compensation. The allegations in brief are :
The complainant is the widow of late Shri Tony Philip. Shri Tony Philip had taken two insurance policies one for Rs. 1,50,000/- and the other for Rs. 1,00,000/-. On 29.3.1995 the third opposite party who is an agent of the Life Insurance1 Corporation alongwith the Assistant Manager Mr. Mohan Roy came to canvass business and requested Sri Tony Philip to take life insurance policy for Rs. 3 lakhs so that he could become a Kodipathi. Mr. Tony Philip to oblige him took policy for Rs.3 1akhs; accordingly on the same day executed proposal for a double accident benefit policy and he paid Rs. 1662/-by a cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kottayam. The same was accepted and Ext. A1 receipt was issued followed by Ext. A2 official receipt. The said Tony Philip met with a motor accident on 17.4.1995 and Crime No. 144/95 was registered by the Chingavanam Police Station, later the same was closed. The claims in respect of the aforesaid 3 policies taken by the aforesaid Tony Philip were submitted. The first opposite party though settled the claims and paid the amount as per the earlier two policies, the claim in respect of the third policy, neither was settled nor was paid inspite of repeated demands. Father of the deceased Tony Philip met the second opposite party on 23.7.1996 and submitted a letter enclosing the copy of the receipts and made request to settle the matter at the earliest; but that was not fruitful; instead they issued letter dated 1.3.1997 to furnish 15 specimen signatures of late Sri Tony Philip. Since the complainant was not in possession of the specimen signature of the deceased it could not be complied. Thereafter nothing was heard. It is alleged, failure to settle the claim, under law, would constitute deficiency of service and negligence; therefore she is entitled to the aforesaid direction.
2. The opposite parties filed their version in which they admitted to their having received the proposal dated 23.3.1995 at the office of the first opposite party on 30.3.1995 any they also admitted to their having received a cheque for Rs. 1,662/-. They contend-, the cheque was encashed and is kept in Suspense Account and they have issued Ext. A2 suspense memorandum also. The decision to accept the proposal was taken on 18.4.1995, no policy was prepared nor has acceptance communicated or issued as in the meanwhile on 25.4.1995 the opposite parties 1 and 2 received an intimation to the effect that Mr. Tony Philip expired on 17.4.1995 in a road accident. The said intimation was received before acceptance and the issue of the policy. In view of the fact that death occurred before acceptance and also that the acceptance was not communicated there is no concluded contract. The signatures in the medical report accompanying the proposal dated 23.3.1995 varied with the signatures of the deceased in other documents. They maintained that there is no deficiency of service consequently they wanted dismissal of the complaint.
3. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant gave evidence as PW 1 and on behalf of the opposite parties RW 1 was examined. On the side of the complainant Exts. A1 to A9 were produced and on the side of the opposite parties Exts. B1 to B3 were produced. .
4. The points that arise for consideration are :
(i) Whether there is a concluded contract ?
(ii) Whether there is any deficiency of service ?
(iii) Reliefs and costs ?
5. In the circumstance of the case it would be convenient to discuss these points together. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that, the stand taken by the opposite parties that there is no concluded contract cannot be supported under law. The learned Counsel maintained, receipt of the proposal, receipt of the cheque for the amount of Rs. 1,662/- and encashment of the same having been ad
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
