SUNITA GUPTA vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

IN this appeal the grievance of the appellant/complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) is that her claim for Rs. 10,000/on the strength of the Life INsurance policy purchased by her husband late Shri Het Singh Gupta from the Life INsurance Corporation, has been arbitrarily rejected by the Life INsurance Corporation of INdia (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party).

THE brief relevant facts of the case are that the complainant''s husband late Shri Het Singh Gupta got a life policy from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 10,000/on 28.10.90. THE complainant being a nominee of such policy, has claimed the amount. THE husband of the complainant died on 14.12.91. THE policy, admittedly, had lapsed since June, 1991. However, the life insured revived this policy by paying instalment due in June, 1991 through a cheque dated. 7.11.91 alongwith penalty etc. but the same was dishonoured and not encashed and, therefore, the policy continued to remain as lapsed. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant was that the opposite party was bound to inform the life insured or his representatives about bouncing of the cheque and since no notice was given about the bouncing of the cheque, it does not lie in the mouth of the opposite party to say that the policy remained lapsed on account of dishonouring of the cheque.

The District Forum has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ayeb Mohammed and Others, 1991 ACJ 650 and the judgment of the National Commission in United India Insurance Company v. N. Mohan Reddy and Another, I (1996) CPJ 194 (NC) and have come to the conclusion that no intimation about bouncing of the cheque is required to be given to the life insured and as such dismissed the complaint.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court or the National Commission in this context, we are unable to take a different view than what has been taken by the District Forum. We are also of the opinion that where the premium is paid by cheque and the cheque bounces, the policy or the cover note issued by the insurer stands automatically cancelled and no intimation of the bouncing of the cheque is required to be given to the insured. In the light of foregoing/ there is no force in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.