Tribunals and Commissions(2001) 07 NCDRC CK 0053

P.M.G. Haryana Circle vs Naraini Devi

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 20 July 2001 · Citation: 2002 1 CPC 207 : 2003 2 AWC 69

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.P. Wadhwa, President, J.K. Mehra, Rajyalakshmi Rao, B.K. Taimni
CASE NUMBER
711 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 284 words
1.

In this revision petition, the decision of the State Commission allowing the appeal has been challenged.

2.

This is a case where the deceased had been paying the premium regularly. However, in the last month in which the death had occurred, he had not paid the premium as that was the month of the grace period during which a premium is paid within the grace period, then the policy does not lapse. It is only if the premium is not paid within grace period that the policy would lapse.

3.

The decision of the State Commission has been rendered keeping in view the notes appended to Rule 39 (1) of the Postal Rules particularly Notes (1) and (3) which read as under : Note 1 : "Should the insured person die after the expiration of the days of grace allowed for the payment in each month of the premium due for that month but before the date of the policy in accordance with this rule, no claim for the payment of the policy will be entertained".

Note 3 : "The Director - General, however, has discretionary power in special cases to allow payment of the value of the policy ex-gratia provided he is satisfied that there has been no deliberate infringement of rules with the object of using the insurance fund in a manner adversely affecting interests and circumstances warrant payment of the policy monies."

4.

The insured in the present case had died within the grace period and prior to the payment of last premium instalment, there had been no default in payment.

5.

We see so infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld and the present revision petition is dismissed.