IMPORTANT POINT
Collection of Premium – The insurance agent is not even has authority to collect premium of insurance policy at all, which is applicable in the facts of the present case also.

JUDGMENT

Gautam Chourdiya, President—This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) is directed against order dated 02/08/2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Janjgir – Champa (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “District Commission” for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/2022/158, whereby the complaint of the respondent herein alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties / appellants herein, in not paying the amount of insurance claim, was partly allowed.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are, admittedly deceased Shyam Lal Bareth, the husband of the complainant / respondent, during his lifetime obtained as many as six life insurance policies on 24.01.2020 for a total sum assured of Rs.15,50,000/- and date of maturity of all the policies was 24.01.2035. On 16.04.2021 the life assured died in a Hospital due to Covid-19. As per case of the complainant/ respondent while her husband was ill premium amount of all the above six policies were given to the authorized agent of the opposite party No.1/ appellant No.1 to deposit the same. When the life assured died death claim along with all the relevant and requisite documents was submitted which was repudiated on the basis of false facts and intimation was given by the opposite party No.2/ appellant No.2 vide letter dated 06.09.2021. Feeling aggrieved complaint was filed before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3. Whereas the opposite parties/ appellants in their joint written version have resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that as contended by the complainant/ respondent the premium amount was given to the authorized agent Durgeshwari Sahu to be deposited with the opposite parties / appellants and in that case the authorized agent was an important and necessary party but has not been impleaded. It was further averred that the life assured died on 16.04.2021 at 10:45 pm after one and three months of issuance of policy i.e. within three years, hence the claim was treated as early death claim and was examined as per provisions of section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938 and on examining the claim it revealed that yearly premium was due for all the polices in the month of January 2021 on 24th but was paid on 17.04.2021 at around 2:30 pm, whereas the life assured had already died on 16.04.2021. Thus with the intention of fraud the premium was deposited after death of the life assured, hence the claim was not payable and in repudiating the claim on the above ground the opposite parties/ appellants have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

4. Learned District Commission after considering the rival contentions of both parties and on the basis of death certificate Exhibit C-6 arrived at the conclusion that the life assured died on 17.04.2021 and premium for all the policies were already given by the life assured to be deposited through the authorized agent of the opposite parties / appellants which were accepted also by the opposite parties/ appellants. That was the second premium of the policies in question which was accepted by the opposite parties/ appellants while the policies were in lapsed condition and in this situation it will be assumed that policies were in force. It was also held that the complainant/ respondent was having right to get the benefits of all the insurance policies being nominee under all the policies. Thus the opposite parties/ appellants were found guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complaint was partly allowed and the opposite parties / appellants were directed to pay the complainant / respondent the total sum assured under all the six life insurance policies i.e. Rs.15,50,000/- (Fifteen Lacs Fifty Thousand), compensation for mental agony Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.7,000/- (Seven Thousand). Above all the amount was directed to