Rajwanti vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

1. LATE Shri Randhir Singh, husband of the complainant/petitioner, Smt. Rajwanti obtained insurance policy from Life Insurance Corporation of India, the respondent in this revision petition, for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 15.10.1996. The petitioner was declared as a nominee of the assured. Unfortunately, Shri Randhir Singh expired on 24.1.1997. The claim was made after an inordinate delay of more than two and a half years on 17.8.1999. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on 2.7.2002. Being aggrieved, the complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and the respondent was directed to pay the amount of insurance alongwith interest @9% per annum from filing of the complaint till realization.

AGGRIEVED by this order, the Life Insurance Corporation of India preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the respondent. Revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the complainant had been visiting the office of the respondent with the prayer to settle the claim of the deceased. Her requests fell on deaf ears.

THIS is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that she has ever approached the authorities of Life Insurance Corporation of India. She did not adduce any evidence in support of her case. Her advocate submitted that only oral requests were made. The oral requests carry exiguous value. She must have produced some cogent and plausible evidence to prove her case. There is also no evidence that information was given on 17.8.1999. Copy of letter and the evidence of its receipt by the LIC were not produced. No intimation of death alongwith death certificate of the deceased was ever sent to the respondent. It appears that the claim was made on 2.7.2002.

IT may also be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeal, the State Commission had issued few directions vide its order dated 1.12.2009. The respondent was directed to reconsider the claim of the complainant. The Life Insurance Corporation of India investigated the case again. Life Insurance Corporation of India came to the conclusion: "Since the death took place within one year of the policy and it being a very early claim, as per the Corporation rules, an investigation was conducted. Since the long time was expired between date of death and date of intimation, the inquiry officer could not able to get any cogent evidence/information. However, it was gathered by I.O. that D.L.A. was a T. B. patient and was not keeping a good health at the time of insurance. Since the case was legally time barred case due to long time between date of death and date of intimation of death, hence the claim was regretted as a legally time barred case. Yours faithfully, Sd/ Manager (L&HPF)

IT must be borne in mind that this much delay in informing the Life Insurance Corporation of India has caused a flim of doubt upon the bona fides of the petitioner. The report of the Life Insurance Corporation of India reveals that the deceased was a T.B. patient and was not keeping his good health at the time of taking the insurance policy and this fact was not disclosed by him in the proposal form while giving his personal statement. An early information of death, would have given the respondent an opportunity to winnow truth from falsehood. The LIC could not get this opportunity and its benefit has to go to it. The petitioner cannot derive benefit of her own mistake. Under these circumstances, the State Commission rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled to any insurance benefits. The revision petition filed by the petitioner is ill-founded and therefore dismissed.