M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1219/2013 Smt. Shompa Mukherjee W/o late Topesh Mukherjee R/o – D-47/3, Rajaramanna Cantt.

Indore (M.P.) ... Appellant VERSUS.

1. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Near Indore High Court

19, M.G.Road Indore (M.P.)

2. Account Officer R.R. CAT, Post CAT Near Rajendra Nagar Indore (M.P.) ... Respondents BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

MS. PREETIMA SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.

NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2.

O R D E R

( 11.03.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated

12.6.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 76/2011, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by her.

2. Briefly put facts of the case are that husband of the appellant-late Taposh Mukherjee (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased/insured’), had obtained an insurance policy under the salary saving scheme, from opposite party/respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’), under which death benefit to the tune of Rs.75,000/- was included. Since the future premiums were to be directly deducted every month from the salary of the deceased/insured, no further premium was paid by him separately. On 8.7.2010, the deceased/insured died, thereafter when the complainant submitted claim application with the Insurance Company, the same was rejected on false grounds. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the Insurance Company, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite party/Insurance Company resisted the complaint and in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the deceased/insured filed proposal form under salary saving scheme of the Insurance Company and the proposer is required to submit an authorisation letter permitting deduction of premium from salary and remittance to the Insurance Company. Upon submitting the same, based on the information provided by the deceased/insured, a Jeevan Saral Policy was issued to him. The monthly premium was Rs.3,062/-. It is submitted that only two month’s premium was deposited under the policy. Thereafter no premium was paid even during the grace period of 15 days, therefore the policy was lapsed. It is further submitted that the deceased/insured was aware of the fact that no amount towards premium was deducted from his salary but he did not make any effort to pay the premium. It is also submitted that the deceased/insured had suppressed material information about his health while filing the proposal form. Therefore in view of Condition No.5 of the Insurance Policy and Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, the claim under the policy was not payable. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on part of the Insurance Company in rejecting the claim and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments and he argued that the subject policy was obtained under Salary Saving Scheme. The premium amount was therefore automatically deducted and forwarded to the Insurance Company. The contention of the Insurance Company is that no premium was paid even after grace period of 15 days and therefore the policy got lapsed, is not sustainable, since the premium installment for two months was last paid by the deceased/insured on 3.3.2010. If the policy was to be lapsed after 15 days of grace period starting from 3.5.2010, then the subject policy should have been lapsed by 18.5.2010, whereas the policy position report dated 29.9.2010 sugg