AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition no. 2943 of 2016 has been filed against the judgment dated 26.05.32016 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (''the State Commission'') in Appeal no. 147 of 2013.
The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that petitioner''s husband had taken an insurance cover on his life from the respondent/ opposite party - LIC under new Bima Kiran Scheme. Under the said policy a sum of equal to the death benefits with loyalty addition was payable on the death of the life assured before the stipulated date of maturity. In the event of life assured surviving the date of maturity a sum of equal to total amount of premium paid with loyalty addition shall be payable. The petitioner had taken the policy on 15.05.2003 and yearly payment was payable each year in the month of May. Petitioner''s husband defaulted in the payment of premium which was due in the year 2011. As per policy condition, if the premium was not paid within the grace period the policy shall lapse. The deceased on 07.12.2011, i.e., after 7 months premium due tried to deposit over-due premium but the LIC advised him to file all the medical records of his life for renewal of his policy. However, the deceased died after four days on 13.12.2011 and the policy could not be revived. The LIC remitted the paid up value of the policy to the petitioner. Petitioner''s case was that she was entitled for the death benefits under the policy as her husband had died before maturity of the policy.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunjhanu (''the District Forum'') vide its order dated 02.01.2013, while allowing the complaint gave the following order: "In the present case the petition of the plaintiff is heard and the claim made by the respondent the company had paid Rs.56,888/- and has quashed the matter being time barred and paid of value to the plaintiff and also the necessary documents and treatment have not been submitted. So this is ordered that the plaintiff should submit all the required documents and full fill the formalities within a month and the respondent is ordered that they should settle the claim of the plaintiff within three months. Therefore, as above, the petitioner is decided as explained ."
Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 08.07.2013 had dismissed the appeal. The respondent/ opposite party then filed a revision petition before this Commission. The National Commission vide its order dated 07.05.2014 was pleased to remand the matter back to the State Commission to decide the same afresh. The State Commission vide its order dated 13.06.2014 again gave a non-speaking order confirming the order passed by the District Forum. The respondent/ opposite party again filed a revision petition before the National Commission. The National Commission vide its order dated 12.11.2014 again set aside the order of the State Commission and remanded the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh on merits. The State Commission thereafter, vide its order dated 26.05.2016 passed an order allowing the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and observed as under: " In the matter before us the premium was not paid by the grace period and payment of premium was tendered on 07.12.2011 by the time policy had lapsed and the deceased was asked to complete the formalities for revival of the policy before he to do so, he died on 13.12.2011. Thus the lapsed policy could not be revived and complainant is not entitled for the death benefits under this policy which had lapsed. The finding of the District Forum cannot be sustained as after death of the insurer, policy cannot be revived for risk on his life. The appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment of the District Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed".
Hence, the present revision petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission had failed to consider that the payment of premium for the remaining policy was tendered on 07.12.2011, hence, steps had already been taken for reviving the policy before the death of the deceased/ insured on 13.12.2011.
The relevant clause 3 of the terms and conditions of the policy reads as under: " 3. Revival of discontinued or lapsed policies: When the premium is not paid within days of grace, the policy lapses without acquiring, any paid up value, but if may be revived during the life time of the life assured, but within a period of 5 years from the due date of the first unpaid premium and before the date of maturity, on production of evidence of health and habits of the life assured (including medical report on his life at his own expenses) to the satisfaction of the corporation, and of evidence to show that there has been non adverse change in the personal or the family history or occupation and on payment of premiums in arrear with interest there on at such rate as may be fixed by the corporation from time to time compounding half yearly reckoning from the due date of such premium paid late. The corporation reserves the right to accept or decline the revival of the discontinued policy. The revival of the discontinued policy shall take effect only after the same is approved by the corporation and is specifically communicated to the life assured".
It is an admitted fact that a discontinued or lapsed policy can be revived within a period of five years from the due date of unpaid premium and before the date of maturity. No-doubt that the complainant paid premium due on 07.02.2011 before the death of the deceased on 13.12.2011 but as per her own admission her husband became seriously ill and could not deposit the premium amount in the month of May. Thereafter, her husband was ill and was regularly under treatment since 19.12.2010. As there was no improvement in his health hence, submission of health certificate was not possible. It has also been admitted in the grounds for revision petition "that because of the conditions of the deceased was severely critical and could not submit the medical certificate as required by the respondent plus taking of her small children".
In view of the above, we agree with the State Commission that as the insured, i.e., the husband of the petitioner had failed to complete the formalities for revival of the lapsed policy. The same could not be revived and as such the complainant - nominee was not entitled for any death benefits under the policy which had lapsed. The respondent cannot be held guilty of deficiency of service on this ground. As per the complainant, the respondent had already issued a cheque for Rs.56,888/- vide cheque no. 035066-000234000 dated 28.04.2012.
Thus, I find no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed.