CONSUMER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION vs Chairman, L.I.C. of India

THIS Appeal has been filed by the Consumer Protection Association, Agartala after delay of 5 days. There is an application for condonation of delay and in the light of the facts stated therein we condone the delay in filing this Appeal.

THOUGH the Appellant is not present before us either in Person or through Authorised Representative, it has sent written submission with the request that the points raised therein may be considered and treated as the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant and the case may be decided on the said basis. We have gone through the written submission filed by the Appellant. The respondent is represented by Mr. R.B. Gupta, Advocate. We have gone through the records of the case inclusive of the order passed by the State Commission and considered the arguments on the side of the respondent. The sole question that arise for determination is whether the State Commission was right in holding that mere was no concluded contract of insurance as on the date on which one Shri H.B. Paul, who had submitted a proposal for insurance to the Life Insurance Corporation, died namely on 15.5.92. On going through the records it is seen that along with the proposal for insuring his life for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, the deceased Mr. Paul had remitted an amount of Rs. 5,904/- towards the first premium on the policy which he wished to take. On examination of the papers by the concerned office of the L.I.C, it was found that the premium so remitted by Mr. Paul was deficient and hence a demand for the deficit premium was made as per the letter dated 7.5.92 which was sent by the office of the L.I.C, at Agartala. It was after the aforesaid letter was sent and when tine balance amount of premium remained unpaid that Mr. Paul passed away on 15.5.92. Though the contention was taken before the State Commission that the aforesaid letter of the L.I.C. was an antedated document, absolutely no evidence was adduced in support of the said plea and the State Commission had rightly rejected the same. When the full amount of premium payable on the policy had not been paid by the proposer and the proposal had not been accepted and there had been no final acceptance of the proposal by the Life Insurance Corporation and no policy had been issued, it cannot be said that a contract of insurance had been concluded as between the proposer and tine L.I.C. prior to the date of his demise. In the circumstances the finding recorded by tine State Commission that the claim made by the widow of the deceased for payment of the amount of the insurance policy for which the insurance policy was intended to be taken by Mr. Paul could not be ordered in her favour was perfectly correct because there was no liability on the part of the Insurer to pay any amount to her inasmuch as no contract of insurance had been concluded in respect of the life of the deceased. The appeal, accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. ______________