AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE second complainant is the appellant. THE second complainant had sent a proposal on 15.7.1996 for Money Back Policy for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and also paid the annual premium of Rs. 14,030/- on the same day namely on 15.7.1996. He has also undergone all the necessary tests required. He sent several reminders to the opposite party, but they have not chosen to accept the policy or send any reply. THErefore, the complainant has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to send the receipt of the premium and deliver the policy and also pay interest on the premium of Rs. 14,030/- 24% from 18.7.1996 along with a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
THE opposite party contended that as the second complainant had already policy for Rs. 2,50,000/-, he was asked to produce ECG, BST, SC Reports and the matter was referred to the Divisional Office and they in turn referred the matter to Zonal Underwriting Unit for acceptance. THE second complainant submitted the different test reports. THE Committee after going through the reports suggested for changing the Table and term from 75-15 to 14-10 and wrote to the second complainant for his consent for payment of extra premium of Rs. 22/- per 1000 sum assured as the life assured of the second complainant was not considered as a first class life. THE Blood Test Report disclosed that he had a glucose of 202 mgs. as against the normal scale 80-140 mgs. and fasting sugar also was above normal. THEre was a slight widening of Aotric Shadow seen and pleural thickening was noted on the right lower lung. THErefore, in the circumstances, the Corporation gave a counter offer but instead of complying with the same, the complainant has chosen to rush to the Forum below. THE sum of Rs. 14,030/- represented is only the deposit and not a premium and only if the proposal is accepted, a premium receipt would be issued. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs. The lower Forum dismissed the complaint. Hence the second complainant is before us by way of appeal.
The position of law is clear that life insurance being a contract of insurance, the mere filling in the proposal form for insurance and depositing the premium will not create a binding contract between the parties. This position of law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in 1984 A.C.J. 345 in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba & Ors. Therefore, in this case on hand, there is no valid, accepted or concluded contract between the parties. An offer has been made by the complainant, which is yet to be accepted by the opposite party. Therefore, when there is no acceptance of the contract, there is no basis upon which any claim can be made by the complainant. Consequently, we find that there is no merit in this appeal.
IN the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs. Cost awarded is Rs. 250/-. The order of the lower Forum is hereby confirmed. Time for compliance. Two months. Appeal dismissed with costs.