IMPORTANT POINT
LIC cannot be said to be bound by the act of agent who received money from insured but failed to remit the same to insurance Co. within grace period but in such a situation agent could be held liable for deficiency in service.

Smt. Veena Misra, Member — This appeal, under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 20-2-2004 passed in com-plaint No. 386/03 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (here-inafter called the ‘District Forum’ for short) whereby the complaint was partly allowed.

2. Undisputably, the complainant’s husband, deceased Yashwant Kumar Sahu, had in his life time obtained Jeevan Surabhi Policy bearing No. 382052504 from the Life Insurance Corporation on 15-3-2001. It is also undisputed that the said Yashwant Kumar Sahu died on 22-7-2002 at about 6.25 A.M. in the morning. It is also not disputed that premium for the said

policy was deposited by the agent on

22-7-2002 at about 13.55 P.M. at Mahasamund with the insurer.

3. Besides, the aforesaid undis-puted facts other facts as averred in the complaint are that the opposite party No. 3 is the agent of Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and as such, authorised to receive the amount of premium. It is also averred that the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 advertised in newspapers and by other media regarding benefits of obtaining Life Insurance Policies. The opposite party No. 3 persuaded the late Yashwant Kumar Sahu to obtain the Life Insurance Policy and assured that the represen-tative of opposite party No. 3/agent will collect the premium and will deposit

the same and obtain the receipt from Opposite party No. 1/insurer. The agent had further assured that he will be responsible for making necessary depo-sits with the insurer and the insured will not have to face any problem in this regard. It was on the assurance given by the opposite party No. 3 that the late Yashwant Kumar Sahu had got his life insured and opposite party Nos. 1 & 2

had issued the insurance policy No. 382052504 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-

on 15-3-2001 and the said policy was valid till 15-12-2012.

4. The complainant was appointed nominee under the said policy. The amount of premium to be paid in the months of March, June, September and December every year, was Rs. 1,382/-. It was further averred in the complaint that grace-period of one month for making payment of premium was also provided. The complainant has further averred that opposite party No. 3/agent had appointed representative/sub-Agent to collect premium from various policy holders and the said representative hand over the collected premium to the opposite party No. 3, who in turn deposited the same vide consolidated cheques with the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and this shows that the opposite party No. 3 collected premium in the aforesaid manner under authority or with the consent of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.

5. It is further averred in the complaint that the grace period of one month for payment of premium for the month of June, without payment of interest lapsed on 15-7-2002, the re-presentative of opposite Party No. 3, Harnarayan Sahu had collected the premium from the deceased on 10-7-2002 and had in turn handed over the amount of Rs. 1,382/- to the opposite party No. 3 on 12-7-2002 i.e. prior to lapse of grace period. However, the premium was deposited by opposite party No. 3 with the insurer on 22-7-2002 at about 13.55 whereas the insured Yashwant Kumar Sahu had died on the said date at about 6.25 A.M. It is further averred that the opposite party No. 3 had deposited the amount of premium with the insurer by means of consolidated cheque and had also paid amount of interest of Rs. 10/- as the premium of deceased insured was deposited after the lapse of grace period. The complainant laid the claim before the insurer, but the same was repudiated by means of letter of opposite party No. 1 received by the complainant on 9-11-2002 on the ground that the policy issued in favour of deceased was already in the lapsed condition. It is also averred in the complaint that the opposite party No. 3/ agent is the representative of the oppo-site party Nos. 1 & 2 and the said agent had not deposited the amount despite receiving t