IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When Policy holder’s death occurred and premium was received by appellants on same day, it should be conceived that policy holder paid premium the same day before his death.
(2) When the policy holder expired during currency of the policy, the policy holder is entitled to the benefit as accrued under the policy

FINAL ORDER / JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellants on V.C. None appears for the respondent. It appears from the record that the respondent is not appearing since long. This matter is of the year 2003. Therefore, this Commission inclined to dispose of the matter on the materials available on record.

2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3. The factual matrix leading to case of the complainant is that the son of the complainant purchased LIC policy under Table and Term 75 – 20 plan on 28.7.2000 from the OPs for a sum assured of Rs.40,000/-. Complainant alleged inter alia that he was paying the premium regularly to the OPs. It is alleged by the complainant that for the month of April, 2001, the premium was not paid and thereafter, it was paid through agent of the OPs but he did not deposit the same. However, the said premium has already been paid on 27.8.2001. In the meantime, the policy holder met accident and on 27.8.2001, the policy holder succumbed to injuries. After the death of the insured, the claim was made. The complainant alleged that the OPs repudiated the claim without any justification for which complaint is filed.

4. The OPs filed written version admitting about purchase of policy by the policy holder who happens to be the son of the complainant. The OPs also admitted that three premiums have been already paid but the premium quarter beginning from April, 2001 was not paid. While the policy was in lapsed condition, payments were made on 27.8.2001 after the death of the policy holder. The OPs further averred that any delay caused by the agent of the LIC is not the responsibility of the OPs because under the LIC Act, 1956 any transaction between the agent and the policy holder not binding on the OPs. As the policy has already lapsed and not revived on time, they have repudiated the claim. It is also averred tht the OPs refunded the last premium paid on 27.8.2001 to the complainant. Thus, they have no any deficiency of service on their part.

5. Learned District Forum after hearing both sides passed the following impugned order:-

“xxx xxx xxx

Having regards to our judgment reflected above it is directed that opp.parties shall go for final settlement of insurance claim of the complainant in releasing Rs.40,000.00 (Rupees Forty thousands) only in her favour together with 18 per cent interest per annum accrued thereon from the date of repudiation i.e. 4.2.2002 till its realization by the complainant. Compliance of order be made within one month from the date of communication of order. In the result complaint is allowed.

Delay in any manner shall carry Rs.50.00 per day as an penal measure.

No order as to costs.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspective. According to him, when the policy has already been lapsed and the death of the policy holder occurred, any payment made after the death or the policy lapsed do not amount to payment of premium complying the policy condition. Learned District Forum has failed to appreciate such fact and law while passing the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned District Forum erred in law by passing the impugned order to settle the claim for the two policies existence and the lapsed policy. He further submitted that the learned District Forum has erred in law by allowing interest on the claim amount to the extent of 18% per annum when such rate of interest was not prevalent on the date of passing of such impugned order. Further, he submitted that the alternative order passed by the learned District Forum is unknown with provisions of law because such order cannot be passed under the provisions of the Act. He al