Life Insurance Corporation Of India & Anr vs Madalambika

Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.),Presiding Member

This Revision Petition No.1163 of 2018 challenges the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (‘the State Commission’) dated 29.11.2017. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 517/2015 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur (‘the District Forum’) dated 19.03.2015.

As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 8 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.  For the reasons stated in I.A. No.16273/2018, the delay is condoned.

Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that she is the widow of the deceased Sri Siddalingaiah and sought claims for three life insurance policies her late husband had taken during his lifetime. After Sri Siddalingaiah unfortunately died in a road accident on 08.10.1997, she filed claims for all three policies. Of the three policies, the Opposite Parties (OPs) settled the claim for two and repudiated the claim for Jeevan Mithra Policy No. 611533875, which was valued at Rs. 50,000. Being aggrieved, she filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking payment for the third policy, arguing that all premiums were duly paid during the deceased's lifetime.

In their reply filed before the District Forum, the OPs accepted the settlement of two policies. However, they denied the claim for the Jeevan Mithra Policy on two grounds i.e. firstly on the ground of limitation, asserting that the claim was not filed within the stipulated time and secondly, that the complainant had not produced the original bond or the original policy documents, which was a requisite for settling the claim.  They sought to dismiss the complaint.

The learned District Forum vide order dated 19.03.2015, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners/OPs as under:

“The complaint is allowed in part with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only).

The Ops are directed to pay the policy amount of Rs.50,000/-With accrued benefits thereon.

If the Ops failed to comply the order within the stipulated time, then the complainant is entitled for the future interest at the rate of 9% P.A. on the payable amount from the date of this order to till realization.

The Ops are directed to comply the order within 45 days from the date of receipt/communication of the order.

Communicate the order to the parties.”

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 29.11.2017 dismissed the said Appeal with following observations:

“9. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

Whether the appeal deserves to be allowed?

What order?

The findings to the above points are;

(i) Negative

(ii)  As per final order

REASONS

After hearing advocate for either side, there is no dispute at all that the deceased Sri Siddalingaiah had obtained three policies and that premiums were being deducted from his salary. There is also no dispute that the appellants have honoured two policies taken by the deceased Sri Siddalingaiah. The respondent/complainant also made her claim in respect of Policy No.611533875 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- obtained in the year 1997 and the claim was put forth by the claimant, the appellants have repudiated the same by virtue of their letter dt. 18.12.2013 which reads as under;

"We are in receipt of your letter dt.l9.10.2013, addressed to the Branch Manager, Kunigal Branch. We have noted the contents.

In this context, we want to inform you that the preference of death claim is being done after 3 years of death of life assured under the policy. The death claim ^ becomes time barred as per the Law of Limitations. The Corporation is under no obligation to honour the time barred claim."

At the time of arguments, advocate for the appellants have also pointed that there is a delay of 16 years and that no original policy was produced by the claimant and as such the repudiation is justified. Further, it is urged that the trial court only on humanitarian ground allowed the complaint which is not sustainable in law.

It is no doubt that the respondent/complainant did not produce the original policy bond before the appellant at the time claim application. On the face on it, there is no dispute at all that this claimant had made a claim in respect of Policy No.611533875 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. This aspect was rejected by virtue of Ex.P.11 letter by the appellant. Now it has to be seen whether the reasons assigned in repudiation letter are sufficient to reject the claim made out by the respondent/complainant. To appreciate the same, it has to be observed here that it is not the case of the Opposite Parties that the complainant has made any false claim in respect of the Policy No.611533875. It is also not disputed that the complainant is a legal heir of deceased Siddalingaiah who had taken a policy as narrated above. It is only the contention that the original policy was not produced by the claimant to honour it. The appellants have repudiated the same as time barred as per the law of limitation and that the appellants have no obligation to honour the time barred claim. Now it is to be seen whether the terms of the policies issued support the reasons assigned in the repudiation letter. The original policy is not produced by the complainant. It is not known as to why the appellants being a Corporation were not in a position to place the entire materials before the District Forum. The appellants being a Corporation should have maintained the copies of the policies for their reference in their office. It is not the version of appellants before the District Forum that they did not maintain any official records in respect of Policy No.611533875 pertaining to deceased Sri Siddalingaiah. When there is no such explanation and when no such objection put forth by the appellant before the District Forum, it would be just and proper to infer that the Corporation must have possessed such records with it. The non-production of such records before the District Forum by the appellant is certainly fatal to their contentions. It is also pertinent to observe that such LIC policies in which the deceased have invested their sweat cannot be brushed aside so easily only on the ground of law of limitation. The repudiation only on the technical reasons without doubting the genuinity of the policy is not just and proper. In the instant case, the respondent/complainant has given reasonable explanation regarding non-production of the policy on the ground that they are illiterate and rustic. The deceased did not handover the said policy during his lifetime. In the circumstances, the repudiation of the appellant only on the ground of technical reasons without there being any dispute regarding the genuine claim is bad in law. Whenever Opposite Parties refuse the bonafide claim, it should be in terms of LIC policy. The A. appellants have nowhere demonstrated that provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the present policy in respect of which a claim is made by respondent. The appellants are keeping the investments of deceased under a bonafide trust deposed by the deceased. When there is no any whisper about genuineness of the claim, it would be unreasonable on the part of the appellants to reject the claim only technical grounds.  For these reasons, we are of the opinion that there are no any strong reasons for us to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. There is no dispute that the premium to the above said policy was being deducted till September 1997. In the circumstances, the appellant Corporation was under legal obligation to honour the policy and claim of the respondent/complainant. For these reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs.

The impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur in CC.No. 120/2014 dt. 19.03.2015 is hereby confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Forum for disbursement.

Return the LCR to the District Forum forthwith.”

The learned counsel for the Petitioners reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition and asserted that the claim repudiation was as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is also averred that the claim of the respondent/complainant was time barred because the date of death of the life insured was on 08.10.1997 and the complaint filed after 12 years of his death.  He sought to set aside the orders of the Fora below and allow the revision petition.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant has argued in favour of concurrent findings of the Fora below.  He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs.

I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

The primary dispute is centred around the rejection of the third policy on the grounds of delay in filing and the failure to provide the original bond or policy documents. The complainant contends that she is entitled to the settlement of the third policy, while the insurance company has denied the claim due to procedural and documentary issues.  These issues are already dealt with by the Fora below.

The learned District Forum rendered a detailed and well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. Also, there are no significant grounds are reasons are advanced by the Petitioners/OPs which entails interference with such detailed and well reasoned orders.

It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

Similarly, in a recent order the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed.

All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly  .