Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member and
Anup K Thakur, Member
N. Raja Reddy —Petitioner
versus
The Branch Manager,
L.I.C. of India and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3900 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 19/06/2013 in Appeal No. 108/2012 of the State Commission
Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 20.3.2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Mr. Vismai Rao and Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, Advocates
For the Respondents:Ms. Jaya Tomar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Once the policy is lapsed for any reason, the same can be revived within the agreed time if the same situation is still prevailing.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b)—Revision Petition—Complainant took six policies from respondents 1&2—Respondent 3 remitted the premium amounts to the Respondents 1&2—In 2009 the petitioner fell sick and underwent heart surgery in Chennai—Petitioner obtained loan against the policies for the treatment—Respondent did not remit the premium amounts during August 2008 to August 2009—Policies lapsed due to non payment of premium in time—Employer paid premium amounts subsequently—However company refused to accept as policies were lapsed—Hence, complaint filed for revival of all the six policies with costs which was allowed by the District forum—Appeal was filed by the Respondents 1&2 in the State Commission on the ground that the policies cannot be revived due to the illness of the complainant, which has rightly allowed the Appeal of the Respondents—Corporation and dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner/Complainant before the District forum—No jurisdictional or legal error found in the impugned order to exercise revisionary powers under Section 21(b)—No infirmity or material irregularity found in allowing the Appeal preferred by the Respondents—Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and is therefore dismissed—The Complaint filed by the Petitioner/Complainant before the District Forum is also dismissed—No order as to costs.
Result: Revision petition dismissed, no costs.
Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner /Complainant against the impugned order dated 19.06.2013 passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.108 of 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case as per Respondent/Complainant are that he insured his life with the Respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and took six policies, the details of which are as follows:
Sl. No.
Policy No.
Policy Issued Date
Date Policy Matured
Sum Assured Rs.
1.
651065453
15/7/1993
15/7/2012
50,000/-
2
651070615
07/9/1998
20/9/2018
50,000/-
3
841975610
20/3/2001
20/3/2016
50,000/-
4.
841976977
20/11/2002
20/11/2018
1,00,000/-
5.
841977861
15/3/2004
15/3/2020
1,00,000/-
6.
842038691
10/3/2004
10/3/2019
1,00,000/-
Total
4,50,000/-
It has been alleged that the Petitioner was paying the premium amounts for all the six policies every month from his salary through his employer i.e. Respondent No.3/OP No.3 by making an authorisation to Respondent No.1. Due to ill health, the Petitioner applied for leave in the year 2009 and went to Vijaya Hospital, Chennai for a heart operation and though the Respondent No.3 recovered the premium from the Petitioner’s salary for the said policies, the same were not forwarded to the Respondent No.1. Subsequently, the Respondent No.3 sent the amount by D.D. on 18-8-2009 for a sum of Rs.15,830/- for the premium amount with a covering letter, which was returned on 22-8-2009 by the Respondent No.1 stating that the policies had lapsed. Thereafter, another DD dated 29-8-2009 for Rs.9,498/- was sent which was again returned. The Petitioner was informed that for revival of his policies he was to send the medical reports from the concerned doctors. He sent the health declaration, ECG, FBBS issued by LIC authorities. Thereafter, the Petitioner was again asked to send the report from Dr. Gupta, M.D. who is a physician of LIC and the same was sent on 21-10-2009. The Respondent No.1 intimated to him to send special Blood sugar test, urine test, SBT-12, haemogram test, Licidogram test, Blood sugar tolerance report. The Petitioner obtained all these test reports and sent them on 11-3-2010 but still the Respondents No.1& 2 did not renew the policies. Respondent No.3, though they had deducted the premiums from his salary did not send them in time to the Respondents No.1 and 2. Therefore, there was negligence on behalf of all Respondents and the Petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking the following reliefs;
“1. directing the respondents jointly and severally to renew the policies bearing Nos.1) 651065453, 2) 651070615, 3) 841975610, 4) 841076977, 5) 841977861, and 6) 842038690, after taking the premium amounts from the 3rd respondent which was deducted from the salary of the complainant.
2. directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant in not reviving the policies without reasonable time.
3. directing the respondents to pay the costs of the complaint to the complaint; and
4. pass such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The Respondent No.2 filed its written version which was also adopted by Respondent No. 1 admitting the issuance of the six policies but denied for want of knowledge that the Petitioner went on leave for one year in the year 2009 but admitted that the premium amounts were not received by Respondent No.1 from the employer—Respondent No.3 from the month of September, 2008. They admitted that they had returned the D.D. sent by Respondent No.3 as the policies had already lapsed. The Respondent No.2 also admitted that they had asked the Petitioner to send the medical
