Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the Order dated 04-08-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in CC/396/2013, this Appeal is preferred by the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

The disputes relates to a death claim being filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

Parties were heard and documents on record gone through carefully.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that a death person cannot revive his policy and since this was mala fidely done by the Respondent No. 1, the instant claim was repudiated.

Undisputedly, two quarterly premiums for the months of November, 2010 and January, 2011 were not paid in time by the policyholder, since deceased.

It appears that, both the premiums, together with incidental fine, was deposited at the City Branch No. 14 of the Appellant on 18-05-2011 at 12.35 p.m. Be it a mere coincidence or otherwise, the policyholder expired on the very same day at a City Hospital owing to Cardio-respiratory failure in a case of Cerebrovascular Accident at 11.15 a.m. 

It is curious to note that, notwithstanding the agent of the Respondent No. 1 deposited all previous premiums pertaining to the said policy at City Branch No. 11 of the Appellant, the disputed premiums were deposited at the City Branch No. 14 which was nearer to the Kolkata Port Trust Centenary Hospital, where the policyholder breathed his last.

Another strange factor of this case, as pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, it was virtually not possible for the concerned agent to know the exact fine amount that was required to revive the lapsed policy as the same is calculated by the computer at the time of actual payment of premiums in the cash counter of the Appellant.  Therefore, the Ld. Advocate wondered, how did the policyholder, since deceased, tender the required amount. I have noticed that there is no clarity in the petition of complaint as to the exact amount being paid by the policyholder during his lifetime to the concerned agent, if at all paid.

Further, it is also noteworthy that the policyholder, since deceased, never called up the said agent for the money receipts pertaining to the disputed payments.  It is quite unusual for a policyholder to do so.    

Interestingly, the concerned agent denied receiving the disputed premiums from the policyholder, since deceased.  The Respondent No. 1, save and except claiming that the amount of disputed premiums were given to the Respondent No. 2 about a fortnight ago by the polichholder before his death,  could not offer any convincing evidence/proof in support of her contention.

With so many unusual factors involved in the overall construct, I cannot endorse the view expressed by the Ld. District Forum.  A dispute cannot be decided by resorting to surmises and conjecture: the claimant is required to establish his/her case by advancing sufficient tangible proof which is sorely missing here.