RESSY STEPHEN vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 10. 2. 1998 of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram dismissing appeal against the order dated 26. 8. 1997 of a District Forum whereby complaint was disposed of with direction to the respondent-Insurance Company to release interest @ 12% p. a. on Rs. 46,049 for three months and also interest from 5. 2. 1997 till realization in favour of the petitioner. Prayer for direction for payment of Rs. 40,000 was declined.

ONLY few facts need be noticed for deciding this revision. Stephen, husband of the petitioner/complainant had obtained a policy of Rs. 40,000 from the respondent/opposite party-Insurance Company. Policy commenced from 28. 10. 1993. Quarterly premium falling due in January, 1996 was not paid even within the grace period upto 28. 2. 1996. Life assured met with an accident on 17. 2. 1996 and he died on 2. 3. 1996 as a result of the burn injuries sustained in the accident. Respondent paid Rs. 46,049 to the petitioner. Petitioner claimed balance amount payable under the policy with interest by filing complaint which was contested by filing written version by the Insurance Company. It was not denied that Stephen was insured for a period of 20 years for Rs. 40,000. However, it was pleaded that the policy got lapsed as the quarterly premium falling due on 28. 1. 1996 was not paid even within the grace period. Since the policy had not run for a minimum period of three years, the petitioner, nominee was even not entitled to get the paid up value. However, under some administrative direction the claim was settled for Rs. 40,000 by way of ex gratia payment which was paid to her. No further amount is payable to the petitioner. We have heard Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Adv. for the respondent.

It is not in dispute that the quarterly premium falling due on 28. 1. 1996 was not paid even within the grace period upto 28. 2. 1996. Thus, on the date of death of life assured on 2. 3. 1996, the policy got lapsed. Copy of the policy is placed at pages 31 to 33. During the course of argument much emphasis was placed on behalf of the petitioner on Disability Benefit Clause No. 10 of the policy. Bare reading of this clause would show that the concession of waiver of payment of future premium upto assurance of Rs. 20,000 admissible subject to the conditions enumerated therein, is not attracted to this case. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost. R. P. dismissed.