L.I.C. Of India vs SUSHMA SINGH

AT the outset it may be recorded that at the hearing on 13.5.1993 the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner. L.I.C has submitted that the L.I.C. had paid a sum of Rs. 9,000 /- as bonus to the Respondent here Smt. Sushma Singh over and above the sum of Rs. 50,000/- already paid ex-gratia.

THE relevant facts leading to this revision petition may be briefly noticed as under: Late Shri Samarjeet Singh Gaur had obtained a life insurance policy-Money Back Plan with profits (with accident benefits) for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on the 29th December, 1988. He had paid the fourth half yearly premium due by the 28th of December, 1988. THE fifth half yearly premium due on 28th June, 1989 was not paid even during the grace period of 30 days. Consequently the policy lapsed. Shri Gaur was murdered between 16th 20th of August, 1989. The L.I.C. paid to his widow, the Respondent here a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as ex-gratia. This was also in full and final discharge of any claim under the policy.

He premium due on tHe 28th of June, 1989 was paid on tHe 21st August, 1989.

ACCORDING to the Respondent Shri Gaur was murdered on 20th August, 1989 and the overdue premium was remitted by post on the 19th of August, 1989 and received by the Insurance Corporation on the 21st August,1989. The District Forum held that Shri Gaur died on the 19th of August, 1989 and that the fifth and last installment of overdue premium was remitted on the same day shortly before Shri Gaur''s death.

THESE findings of fact have been challenged by the Revision Petitioner. The Revision Petitioner has submitted that according to the post-mortem report of the 20th of August, 1989 Shri Gaur had been murdered three four days before i.e. between 16th or 17th August, 1989. Further according to the Revision Petitioner a pay order prepared by one Shri Moti Lal Gupta from his Saving Bank Account with Punjab National Bank, Fatehpur, was tendered at the cash counter of the Revision Petitioner''s Branch at Fatehpur on the 21st of August, 1989.

THE two issues which need to be considered in this case are that: (a) the date of death of Shri Gaur. (b) the date of payment of the insurance premium.

THE Municipal Committee, Fatehpur had issued a certificate on the 4th of September, 1989 stating that Shri Gaur was killed on the 19th of August, 1989, "according to records" (page 77 of the paper book). THE postmortem report of 20th August, 1989 at page 16 of the paper book is, however quite categoric. It says that the dead body was three-four days old. THE certificate issued by the Municipal Committee is a secondary evidence and we cannot overlook the primary evidence of the post-mortem report. THEre is, therefore, no doubt that Shri Gaur died before the 19th of August, 1989. As regards the remittance of the premium, the Respondent has produced the certificate of posting dated the 19th of August, 1989 from the post office (page 78 of the paper book) purporting to show despatch of the pay order for the amount of the premium obtained by Shri Moti Lal Gupta on the 19th of August, 1989 from Punjab National Bank. On the other hand there is categoric assertion by the Revision Petitioner-Insurance Company that this amount was tendered at the cash counter by the petitioner''s branch at Fatehpur on 21st of August, 1989 and receipt was issued to the depositor across the counter on the same date. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the premium was remitted on the 19th August, 1989. In any case our finding is that the life assured had expired before the 10th August, 1989 and the policy had lapsed on the 28th of June, 1989 and as such no claim was maintainable under the policy of insurance.

In view of the above , there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Revision Petitioner in refusing to pay double accident benefit under the policy. The appeal succeeds In view of the above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Revision Petitioner in refusing to pay double accident benefit under the policy. The appeal succeeds and the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Order accordingly.