Life Insurance Corporation of India vs NARANJAN KAUR

LIFE Insurance Corporation, the opposite party, is in appeal challenging order of District Forum, Jalandhar dated June 4, 1998 whereby the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant Narajan Kaur.

JARNAIL Singh had taken Life Insurance Policy from the appellant Corporation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with double accident benefit from August 22,1991 as the date of commencement. JARNAIL Singh was aged about 40 years and was in Government Service (Police Department). He died on January 18,1994 on account of AIDS. The claim on the basis of the policy was lodged by the complainant, widow of JARNAIL Singh, deceased. The same having been repudiated on March 21, 1996, District Forum was approached by the complainant on March 17,1998. The Corporation contested the complaint, inter alia, on the ground that claim was barred by time and that the policy had lapsed on account of non-payment of the premium and it was only ex gratia claim which was being considered but was found to be not payable that letter dated March 21, 1996 repudiating the same was written. Learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation has argued that the present complaint filed on March 17, 1998 was clearly barred by time. There is no force in this contention. The repudiation letter is dated March 21, 1996 and the complaint filed on March 17,1998 was well within two years. The period of limitation for filing complaint is two years as provided under Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The question for consideration in the present case is as to whether the Corporation was justified in repudiating the claim, in other words, was any amount payable under the lapsed policy to the complainant. The policy lapsed on November 28, 1993 for non-payment of the premium. To this extent, there is no dispute as no evidence has been produced by the complainant that the due premium by that date had been paid. The policy lapsed within three years of taking of the same and as per terms and conditions of the policy, no amount was payable on the death of the insured. It was only ex-gratia payment as per instructions of the Corporation that could be allowed but for that it cannot be held that complainant was a consumer as of right entitled to the same. At this stage, reference be made to the decision of the National Commission in Branch Officer, L.I.C. of India & Anr. v. Kanchanben H. Shah & Ors., II (1994) CPJ 62 (NC), holding therein that action of the Corporation in the matter of non-grant of ex- gratia payment is not a consumer dispute.

ALONGWITH the appeal, some Annexures were filed, copies of which were produced before the District Forum. Annexure A-7 is the Certificate of hospital treatment as issued by P.G.I., Chandigarh. Date of admission of Jarnail Singh is stated to be January 17,1994. At the time of the admission, the nature of his complaint and duration was stated to be HIV + VE since 1991. In the history recorded, it is mentioned H/o sexual contact 1985. In the column No. 7 history reported was H/o contact. It is such information which could only be given by the patient himself. Annexure A8 is Form No. 3816 as issued Sacred Heart Hospital, Maqsudan. Date of admission is January 14, 1994 and the history reported is chronic alcoholic x 30 years, Hypertension x 3 years, Pain Epigartrum x 10 days. Under column No. 6, Diagnosis, it is mentioned HIV+. In the history recorded, it is mentioned chronic alcoholic 1 bottle daily x 30 years. Ex. A-9 is the letter of repudiation wherein wrong answers to the questions put were mentioned. The claim was repudiated on the ground that he was suffering from AIDS and was chronic alcoholic. It is such a case where deceased knew about his ailment but has not disclosed it at the time of taking the policy. The intention appears to be to defraud the Corporation by taking such policy and concealing material facts about his health. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed. ______________