L.I.C.of India vs N.LAKSHMI NARAYANA

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, Chittoor, the opposite parties (L.I.C) in C.D. No. 187/93 preferred this appeal. The respondent herein is the complainant, who filed a complaint to direct the appellants to issue Jeevan Surabhi policy bond for the financial year 1992- 93 with date back facility; (2) to accept the 2nd premium without collecting late fee; (3) to pay a sum of Rs. 37,264/- towards loss and damages and to pay Rs. 12,340/- towards first premium paid with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of remittance till realisation and costs of the complaint.

THE case of the complainant in brief is as follows : - THE complainant made a proposal dated 25.3.1993 to insure his life under Jeevan Surabhi policy for one lakh of rupees with date back facility from 30.8.1992 with a view to claim income, tax rebate for the year 1992-93 and paid the first premium amount of Rs. 12,340/- on 31.3.1993.But the opposite parties have not issued the policy though second premium is due on 30.8.1993. He received a letter of 8.7.1993 stating that his proposal will be accepted if the balance of premium of Rs. 194/- is paid and date back facility will be allowed only from 1.4.1993. He replied stating that all formalities were complied with and he is not at all responsible for the delay in supplying tele with report to the 4th respondent. As there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered total loss to the tune of Rs. 37,264/- i.e., towards income tax rebate for the year 1992-93 Rs.2,468/-, towards penalty Rs. 2,468/-, towards additional premium at Rs. 194/- for 12 months Rs. 2,328/- and towards damages Rs. 30,000/-. In this regard the complainant also got issued a legal notice on 28.7.1993 to the respondents and the 3rd respondent replied on 24.8.1993 with false and untenable allegations.

The 3rd respondent filed objections, which was adopted the other respondents, admitting the proposal made by the complainant and the receipt of Rs. 12,340/- towards 1st premium. As per the opinion of 4th respondent the tele with report was called for on 23.4.1993 and it was received on 3.5.1993 by which time the accounts for 1992-1993 were closed and hence the policy with date back for 1992-1993 could not be issued. The 4th respondent called for further declaration with regard to good health of the complainant and the premium for higher age at entry was calculated at Rs. 194/-. The delay caused in issuing the policy was due to the complainant submitting the tele with report only on 3.5.1994. Hence the complainant was informed that due to non-submission of tele with report by 31.3.1993, his proposal was not completed and the proposal of the complainant will be considered in the current financial year provided that the complainant furnishes satisfactory evidence of his health and payment of the difference in the premium.

BEFORE the District Forum, no oral evidence was adduced by either party, but Exs. A-1 to A-4 and Exs. B-1 to B-8 were marked, on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties respectively. The District Forum considering the material on record, directed the opposite parties to issue a date back policy or to refund Rs. 12,340/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 31.3.1993 till the date of realisation, pay Rs. 5936/- towards damages and Rs. 300/- as costs.

IN this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that on 8.7.1993 the complainant was informed that the date of risk can be covered only from 1.4.1993 or subsequent date due to closure of accounts for the financial year 1992-93 that the complainant has also not furnished all required reports by 31.3.1993, that he submitted tele with report only on 3.5.1993, and hence the District Forum erred in finding that the complainant has submitted the proposal form on 31.3.1993 which entitled him to the benefit of issuance of policy with date back facility from 30.8.1992. It is true that the complainant was informed as per Ex. B5 letter that he required information was received in the 1st week of May, 1993 and also sought for further requirements to be complied by the complainant. There is no evidence contrary to the contentions raised by the Counsel for the appellant in this regard. Admittedly the complainant has furnished the tele with report only on 3.5.1993 by which date, the financial year of 1992-1993 was closed. By mere submission of proposal form, without fulfilling all the required information as required by the appellants, it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the appellants in endearing service. We are not inclined to accept the view of the District Forum that there is negligence on the part of tile appellants and payment of Rs.5936/- towards damages, as the complainant has paid the first premium of Rs. 12,340/- the receipt of which was admitted by the appellants, and as the policy was not issued, it is just and proper to direct the appellants to refund the amount of Rs. 12,340/- to the complainant. We are also of the opinion, that the amount was paid on 31.3.1993 which the appellants utilised; the complainant is entitled for interest at 18% on the said sum. Therefore the order of the District Forum so far as the direction for payment of Rs. 5936/- towards damages, is set aside and in other respects it is confirmed. In the result, we allow the appeal in part and there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.