LIC OF INDIA vs Sukadev Sutar

LATE Sh. Ranjan Sutar, son of the complainant obtained a LIC policy for assured sum of Rs. 30,000/ -. The said policy was to commence on 28.10.2000 and was to mature on 28.10.2020. The son of the complainant expired on 28.03.2002. The claim lodged by the complainant for payment in terms of the insurance policy, he being the nominee of the insured, however, was rejected by the petitioner Corporation on the ground that the policy taken by the deceased had lapsed on account of non -payment of the quarterly premium which had fallen due on 28.01.2002. The case of the complainant in this regard was that the premium of the aforesaid quarter was duly paid by his son on 25.01.2002 to an agent of the petitioner Corporation namely Mr. Rajendra Kumar Das, who was also impleaded as a party to the complaint. Being aggrieved from the rejection of his claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

THE complaint was opposed by the petitioner Corporation on the ground that the premium for the quarter October, 2001 to January, 2002 had fallen due on 28.01.2002, but had not been paid. The agent of the Corporation also denied having received the premium from the deceased insured, for the quarter ending January, 2002.

VIDE its order dated 26.07.2003, the District Forum directed the petitioner Corporation to pay the insured amount of Rs. 30,000/ - to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the Corporation approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed by order dated 24.06.2010, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.

A perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner Corporation before the District Forum would show that the insurance policy was taken by the son of the complainant in October, 2000 and he paid only five quarterly premiums which had fallen due in October 2000, January 2001, April 2001, July 2001 and October 2001. The premium which had fallen due in January 2002, however, was not paid by the insured.

AS regards the alleged payment to opposite party no. 1, Rajendra Kumar Das, the agent of the Corporation, though the complainant did not produce any documentary proof of the alleged payment such as the receipt for the aforesaid payment and in the absence of such a documentary proof, the plea of payment to the said agent cannot be accepted, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the premium for quarter ending January, 2002 was paid by the insured to Mr. Rajendra Kumar Das, such payment shall not bind the petitioner Corporation unless it is shown that he was duly authorised by the Corporation to collect the insurance premium on its behalf. There is no evidence of the petitioner Corporation having authorised Mr. Rajendra Kumar Das to receive the insurance premium from the insured on its behalf. Moreover, it is an admitted case that no such premium was actually deposited by Mr. Rajendra Kumar Das with the petitioner Corporation.

IN these circumstances, when neither there is any documentary proof of the alleged payment to Mr. Rajendra Kumar Das nor was he authorised to receive the insurance premium on behalf of the petitioner Corporation, the alleged payment made to him cannot bind the Corporation. Consequently, the District Forum and the State Commission were not justified in directing the payment of insured amount to the complainant. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.