Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Manager, Bajaj Life Insurance
Company —Petitioner
versus
Parvati Bai and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1010 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 22/12/2015 in Appeal No. 304/2015 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 21.2.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pankul Nagpal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: NEMO
For the Respondent No.2:Md. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The bank is solely responsible for the consequences, if premium is not paid even within grace period, and if consequently the policy is lapsed.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b)—Banking and Insurance-the bank had taken Master Policy for its account holders-the complainant is one of them-the premium was not paid even within grace period-husband died-premium paid thereafter and accepted by the Insurance Company without being aware of death-the complainant is entitled only to the account balance amount of Rs. 34,344/- @ 9% and not the sum assured, as the policy was admittedly lapse. But, since, it was owing to the negligence of the bank, the entire responsibility is with the bank and not on the Insurance Company. (Para 5)
Result: Complaint allowed only against bank.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—Late Smt. Bisouharam Dilliwar had a bank account with the respondent Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank presently known as Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank. The said bank had taken a master insurance policy from the petitioner company, namely, Sarvea Shakti Suraksha insurance policy, in respect of its account holders. Being one of the account holders, the husband of the complainant was also insured under the said master policy. The premium for the insurance policy used to be deducted by respondent No.2 from the account of the deceased husband of the complainant and remitted to the petitioner company. The premium for the year 2013 was payable on or before 6.8.2013. There was also a grace period of 30 days for making payment of the premium. The said grace period also expired on 5th/ 6th September, 2013. The premium, however, was not paid even within the prescribed grace period. The husband of the complainant died on 18.9.2013. The premium in in respect of his insurance cover was thereafter paid by respondent No.2 to the petitioner on 25.9.2013 and was accepted, without being aware that the deceased husband of the complainant had already died on 18.9.2013.
2. A claim for payment of benefits available under the insurance policy taken on the life of her husband was submitted by the complainant. However, only the account balance of Rs.34344/- was offered to her as against the sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/-. This was done on the ground that the policy had lapsed on account of non-payment of the insurance premium. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
3. The complaint was opposed by the petitioner as well as by respondent No.2.
4. The District Forum having ruled only against the petitioner, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
5. It is not in dispute that the insurance premium for the year 2013 was payable on or before 6.8.2013. It is also not in dispute that the deceased husband of the complainant had died on 18.9.2013. It is also an admitted position that the premium to the insurance company was paid only on 25.9.2013 and that while remitting the premium, it was not informed to the insurer that the deceased had already died. It is thus evident that the insurance premium was not paid even within the grace period available for the purpose. Therefore, the policy lapsed on 6.9.2013. The deceased insured having died on 18.9.2013, the no insurance cover on life was available on that date. Therefore, the petitioner company cannot be held liable to pay the sum assured to the complainant. The account value of Rs.34344/- had admittedly been offered to the complainant but was not accepted by her. No further liability in my opinion can be fastened upon the petitioner company.
6. However, respondent No.1 having not deducted and remitted the insurance premium, payable in respect of the insurance cover of the deceased husband of the complainant, even within the grace period which expired on 5th/ 6th September, 2013, it was clearly deficient and negligent in rendering services to the complainant. Had the insurance premium been deducted and remitted in time, the insurance cover would have been available at the time of the death of the deceased husband of the complainant. It was solely on account of the negligence on the part of respondent No.2 that the insurance policy which had been taken on the life of the deceased husband of the complainant lapsed on 5th/ 6th September, 2013. Therefore, it is only respondent No.2 which can be held liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by her.
7. The complaint filed by respondent No.1 is disposed of in terms of the following order:-
(i) The petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs.34344/- to the complainant along with interest on that amount @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date on which the s
