IMPORTANT POINT
Any amount which has been deposited as premium and has been accepted as such, after the death of the insured, cannot be legally termed as amount of premium and no benefit can be obtained on account of such deposit in respect of lapsed policy.

S. C. Vyas, President—This is an appeal of unsuccessful complainant whose complaint No.314/ 07 has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short), vide order dated 18.9.2008.

2. As per facts of the case the appellant herein is the widow of one Peelaram Kosle, who obtained life insurance policy of Rs.25,000 from respondent No.1 through respondent No. 2 on 16.8.2003, the name of the policy was Jan Raksha Yojana. Premium of the policy was payable by 15th of every January, April, July and October every year. It is not in dispute that premium for the month of October, 2003 was not paid in time. As per the case of the complainant on 4.1.2004, premium for the month of October, 2003 as well as for the month of January 2004 were paid together to the insurance agent for depositing the same with the LIC. The agent deposited the amount on 9.1.04. On that very date the insured died an unnatural death by drowning in a well. Then claim for sum assured was preferred by the complainant, which was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the policy had already been lapsed in the month of October 03. The same stand has been taken by the LIC in the written version also and it has been specifically pleaded that the policy had already lapsed automatically when amount of premium was not deposited at the due date or not even within 30 days thereafter during grace period. It has been submitted that the lapsed policy could not revive even after deposit of due premiums.

3. Learned District Forum has taken into consideration the material placed before it by both parties and ultimately, dismissed the complaint.

4. The only question, which arises for consideration before this Commission is whether the policy could be termed as revived after the deposit of premium on 9.1.04.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has very vehemently argued that premium of October 03 and January 04 were collectively paid to the insurance agent respondent No.2 by the deceased during his lifetime on 4.1.04, she submitted that in this regard affidavit of complainant as well as one witness are on record, which have not been contradicted by the insurance company by filing any affidavit. She submitted that there is nothing to disbelieve the affidavit of these two witnesses, and therefore, through this evidence it is proved that insurance premiums were paid to the agent by the deceased during his lifetime. Such premium has been deposited by the agent in the insurance company, which accepted those premiums and issued receipt and thereby the policy has revived. She submitted that as all premiums have been deposited in the insurance company and have been accepted, therefore, insurance policy cannot be termed as lapsed policy and the amount under the policy is payable.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance corporation has refuted these arguments and submitted that as per the case of the complainant herself, deceased died on 9.1.04 between 7.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, whereas the premiums have been paid in the office of the insurance corporation on the same day at 3.22 pm i.e. after the death of the insured. If the due premiums, on account of which policy had already lapsed, has been paid subsequently alter the death of the insured then merely on account of such payment it cannot be said that the policy has revived.

7. We have considered aforesaid arguments advanced by both parties and perused the material available in the file of the District Forum.

8. From the record it is clear that dead body of deceased Peelaram was detected on 9.1.04, itself at about 1.45 p.m. in the noon and some villagers found that his clothes and shoes were near the well and his body was inside the well. He was patient of epilepsy. During the inquest report it was found that he died due to drowning somewhere between 7.00 am to 12.00 noon in the morning. The postmortem report of the deceased also shows that he died somewh