Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ajit Bharthoke, P.M and Rekha Gupta, Members
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
HARHCARAN SINGH & OTHERS - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1960 of 2013.
Decided on : 01-09-2015
M.S. Sethi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Roopansh Purohit, Advocate, for the Respondent
The cancellation of the policy could not be a defense against the payment of compensation as the insured had died before the cancellation notice was sent.
Headnote:
Insurance - Policy Cancellation - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - The Consumer Forum found that the insurance company violated the policy cancellation conditions by not returning the premium to the insured and not informing the insured about the cancellation. The State Commission upheld the decision, emphasizing that the cancellation could not be a defense against the payment of compensation as the insured had died before the cancellation notice was sent. The revision petition was dismissed by the court, stating that there was no jurisdictional or legal error to warrant interference with the State Commission's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The insured had a policy with the insurance company, which was allegedly cancelled in 2005. The insured died in 2009, and the insurance company refused to pay the death claim, citing the policy cancellation.
Finding of the Court:
The Consumer Forum and the State Commission found that the insurance company violated the policy cancellation conditions and upheld the complaint, ordering the insurance company to pay the death claim amount along with interest and litigation expenses. The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that there was no jurisdictional or legal error to warrant interference with the State Commission's decision.
Issues: Violation of policy cancellation conditions, entitlement to death claim amount, jurisdictional and legal errors in the State Commission's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The cancellation could not be a defense against the payment of compensation as the insured had died before the cancellation notice was sent. The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that there was no jurisdictional or legal error to warrant interference with the State Commission's decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the State Commission's decision to order the insurance company to pay the death claim amount along with interest and litigation expenses.
ORDER
Rekha Gupta, Member. - Revision Petition No. 1960 of 2013 has been filed by the respondent/opposite party against the order dated 22.1.2013, passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (short, "State Commission") in First Appeal No.529 of 2012.
2. The facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that Paramjit Singh son of Harcharan Singh got himself insured with the opposite parties no.1 & 2 vide policy no.401308/9600001/98 vide certificate no.0005937 for Rs. 1,00,000/- through the opposite party no.3. The policy was for the period from 6.4.1999 to 5.4.1999. The said policy covered the insured from accidental death along with other disabilities mentioned on the overleaf of the policy.
3-5. Paramjit Singh met with an accident on 5.4.2009 while returning to his village and died in the way while being taken to Civil Hospital, Samrala. The postmortem of Paramjit Singh was conducted on 6.4.2009 and matter was reported and a DDR No.4 dated 6.4.2009 was also got recorded by Police of P.S. Macchiwara. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and its Ludhiana office regarding the death claim of said Paramjit Singh and requested them to release the death claim amount of deceased Paramjit Singh. The complainants also submitted relevant documents to the opposite parties, but they refused to pay the said death claim amount. Thereafter the complainant no.1 received one letter dated 4.5.2009 from the opposite party no.2 alleging that the policy in question was cancelled by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 on 29.7.2005 and they had also sent a cheque bearing no.706402 dated 4.5.2009 for the amount of Rs. 196/-.
6. Thereafter the complainant filed fresh complaint against the opposite parties no.1 and 2, which was partly allowed by the District Forum, Sangrur with direction to the opposite party no.2 to handover the claim form to the complainants within fortnight from the date of order and decide the matter vide its order dated 09.12.2010. Cheque no.706402 dated 4.5.2009 in original is placed in the consumer complaint file bearing no.375 dated 09.06.2010 decided on 09.12.2010 titled Harcharan Singh and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others.
7. On 12.02.2011, the complainants received one claim form which was sent to the opposite party no.2 after completing all the formalities by the complainant no.1. In response to the said claim form, the opposite party no.2 served a letter dated 22.2.2011 to the complainant no.1 alleging the claim case of the complainants had been repudiated as the policy in question had been cancelled in the year of 2005 as mentioned above.
8. In their reply before the State Commission, the petitioners/OP Nos.1 & 2 contended that the present complaint was not maintainable under law. The policy in question which was issued w.e.f. 06.04.1999 to 05.4.2009 stood cancelled w.e.f. 29.7.2005. A letter to that effect had been issued to the insured M/s Star Gold Mine Chits P. Ltd. but since the office insured was lying locked so a public notice was published in Punjab Kesri dated 15.11.2005 to that effect. No policy was subsisting on the date of death of Paramjit Singh, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
9. That the present complaint was not maintainable since the respondent had already sent the refund of premium amounting to Rs. 196/-. The cheque no.706402 dated 4.5.2009 vide letter dated 4.5.2009 on the basis of pro-rata premium from the date of cancellation of policy i.e. 29.7.2005 to 05.04.2009. Therefore, on this ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed as Paramjit Singh beneficiary was not insured at the time of his death.
10. The District Forum vide its order dated 6.3.2012 while allowing the complaint had observed as under:-
"10. Adverting to the question of liability of opposite parties number 1 & 2, clause number of the conditions of the insurance policy Ex.R-2 reads as under:-
"The company may at any time by notice in writin
