Back
2009(1) CPR 203
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
K.R. Udaybhanu, President and Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan, Member
Deepa Vijaykumar & Anr. —Appellants
versus
The Senior Division Manager LIC
of India & Ors. —Respondents
Appeal No. 276/2004
Decided on 15.2.208
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:S. Reghukumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2:Sri Anayara Shaji, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
A contract of issuance can come into existence even without issuance of formal policy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15—Deficiency in service—Deceased paid half yearly premium —Same accepted unconditionally by opposite parties on 8.5. 2002—Assured died on 11.5.2002 in an accident—Contract of insurance can come into existence even without issuance formal policy—No evidence to show that premium amount was kept in suspense account—Death result of accident—No premeditation on part of assured or his relatives—Opposite parties directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 with interest @ 9% and cost of Rs. 2,000. (Paras 12, 13)
Result: Appeal allowed.
K.R. Udayabhanu, President—The Appellants are the complainants in O.P. No. 353/02 in the file of the CDRF, Kollam. The complaint was dismissed by the Forum.
2. The first appellant is the wife and the second appellant is the minor daughter of the deceased Vijayakumar. The case is that the late Vijayakumar had availed a Life Insurance Policy (Policy No. 782662951) issued by the 2nd respondent i.e., the Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Karunagapally. The deceased had paid Rs. 4,036 on 8/5/2002 towards half yearly premium. The second opposite party had issued an unconditional receipt accepting the premium and the proposal. Subsequently the policy certificate was also issued. Sum assured was Rs.1 lakh. As per Clause 10 (b) of the policy the opposite parties are liable to pay an additional sum equal to the sum assured under the policy. The assured died on 11.5.2002 in an accident. The claim form submitted by the first complainant was turned down. The first opposite party, the Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C., Thiruvananthapuram as per letter dated 28/9/2002 repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no valid contract existing at the time of death of the proposer.
3.The first and second opposite parties representing the L.I.C. filed a joint version contenting that all although the Branch Manager/second opposite party received an initial deposit of Rs. 4,036/- on 9/5/02 along with the proposal. The other requirements were submitted only on 31/5/2002. It is contented that while the proposal was under consideration for underwriting the first complainant intimated the second opposite party that Shri. D. Vijayakumar died on 11.5.2002. The death intimation was received on 30.8.2002. No letter of acceptance was issued and no policy of insurance was caused. The other requirements for proposal was submitted only on 31.5.2002 i.e., after the death of the proposer. It is contended that a contract of insurance is concluded only on issuance of a letter of acceptance or a policy of insurance. Mere retention of the amount of premium cannot constitute any contract of insurance. It is also mentioned that there was no delay in taking the decision on the proposal. The proposal was received by the second opposite party on 9/5/2002. The matter of rejection was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 28/9/2002.
4. The 3rd opposite party, the L.I.C. agent has filed a version admitting that she had accepted the first premium from the deceased and remitted the said amount before the first opposite party along with the proposal form etc. She has pleaded ignorance regarding the acceptance of the proposal. With respect to the rest of the contentions, the 3rd opposite party has supported the case set up by the first and 2nd opposite parties.
5.The 4th opposite party is the mother of the deceased who has supported the version of the complainant.
6.The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the first complainant: Exts. P1 to P4: DW1 the officer of the 2nd opposite party, Exts. D1 to D4.
7.The Forum dismissed the complaint relying on the observation of the Supreme Court in L.I.C of India v. Raja Vasireddy1 that acceptance is complete only when the same is communicated to the offerer, and that the contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and communicates its acceptance to the person making the offer etc.
8. It is the contention of the appellant/complainant that the premium has been accepted unconditionally, and hence the contract of insurance has been completed. It is contended that the contract of insurance came into force on 8/5/2002 the date of acceptance of premium. The counsel has relied on the decision reported in L.I.C. of India v. Kamalamma.2 He has sought to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court in Vasireddy’s case (op.cit). It is pointed out that in the above decision of the Supreme Court the facts are different. In the above cited decisio
