ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Subash Mahtab, President In-charge and Basanti Devi, Member
LIC OF INDIA AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
ASHALATA PAL - Respondent
Appeal No. 761 of 2001
Decided on : 04-06-2008
Insurance - Death Claim - Lapsed Policy - Acceptance of Premium After Death - Policy Benefit Not Entitled
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a case alleging deficiency in service by the insurance company for repudiating the death claim of the life assured due to non-deposit of quarterly premium before the life assured died.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum initially held that the complainant was entitled to the policy benefit as the premium for July, 1999 was accepted with late fee after the death of the life assured. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, stating that the policy was lapsed prior to the death of the life assured and the acceptance of premium after the death cannot revive the policy.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant was entitled to the policy benefit as the nominee of the life assured, considering the acceptance of premium after the death of the life assured.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the life insurance contract ceases with the death of the life assured, and the policy was lapsed due to non-payment of quarterly premium before the death. Acceptance of premium after the death cannot revive the policy, and the complainant is not entitled to the policy benefit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the District Forum were upheld, stating that the complainant is not entitled to the policy benefit.
ORDER
Mrs. Basanti Devi, Member - The opposite parties in C.D. Case No. 6 of 2001 have assailed the orders dated 29.10.2001 of the District Forum, Balasore directing them to pay the full benefits available under the Policy No. E-582440762 and Rs. 1,000 as litigation cost to the complainant within a period of sixty days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, as illegal.
2. Facts in brief are that Surendra Kumar Pal obtained a Money Back Plan with profits policy No. 582440762 dated 28.4.1998 for an endowment sum of Rs. 25,000 from opposite party Nos.l and 2 on quarterly premium of Rupees 413 payable in the months of January, April, July and October. The maturity date of the policy was 28.4.2018. Smt. Ashalata Pal - the wife of the life assured is the nominee. The life assured had only paid quarterly premium upto quarter April and died in a vehicle accident on 18.9.1999. By that time, the quarterly premium for July, 1999 was not paid. Quarterly premium for July, 1999 was paid with late fee to opposite party No. 2 on 20.9.1999 and opposite party No. 2 had granted receipt. Complainant intimated opposite parties in respect to the death of the assured which opposite parties received on 18.2.2000. Complainant made death claim intimating the wrong policy number, for which as per the instruction of the opposite parties, she gave them the correct policy number on 19.8.2000. But opposite parties repudiated the death claim of the complainant on the ground that the policy was lapsed due to non-deposit of quarterly premium for July, 1999 before the life assured died. Therefore, complainant had filed the aforesaid C.D. case alleging deficiency in service by opposite parties in repudiating the death claim.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as none appeared for the respondent and perused the materials available in the record. Neither the policy nor the policy condition have been filed by the parties.
4. The sole point for determination in the C.D. Case was as to whether complainant was entitled to policy benefit as the nominee of life assured-Surendra Kumar Pal since opposite parties have accepted premium for July, 1999 with late fee.
5. The District Forum arrived into a finding in the C.D. Case that since opposite party No. 2 has received the premium for July, 1999 with late fee after death of life assured, the complainant is entitled to policy benefit. District Forum has relied upon a decision of C.D.R. Commission, Andhra Pradesh in this respect. Accordingly, District Forum passed the aforesaid impugned orders holding opposite parties to have caused deficiency in service by not allowing complainant to the policy benefit.
6. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that payment of premium after the death of the life assured is a serious offence and since policy was lapsed prior to the death of the life assured, even if opposite parties have received premium amount for the quarter viz. July, 1999 with late fee after the death of life assured, the policy cannot revive. Therefore, the opposite parties /appellants have claimed for dismissal of the C.D. Case, they having not caused deficiency in service.
7. Going through the case of both parties, we find that the District Forum have committed serious error in law and facts in directing opposite parties/appellants to allow death claim under the said policy when the contract under said policy was seized prior to the death of the life assured. Undisputedly, life assured had not deposited premium for the quarter July, 1999 and he died on 18.9.1999. Undisputedly, premium being paid for this quarter with penalty to opposite party No. 2, opposite party No. 2 has received the same. It is well settled that the life insurance contract senses with the death of the life assured. Before the life assured in the present case died, the contract for insurance was seized and policy was lapsed due to non-payment of quarterly premium in the month of July, 1999. Moreover, the premium f
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.