ANAND SHANKAR SINGH vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

IT is the complainant who is the petitioner before us. Though he succeeded for his claim of insurance in respect of the life of Deena Nath Singh, assured, since died, he lost in the State Commission on appeal filed by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India (I JC).

DEENA Nath Singh, the deceased, took a life insurance policy on 28.2.95 for Rs.1.00 lakh . Premium was to be paid quarterly @ Rs.1,521/- per quarter payable in February, May, August and November of each year. Deena Nath Singh died in the month of September within seven months of his taking the policy. The dispute pertains to the date of death whether Deena Nath Singh died on 20.9.95 as was contended by the LIC or on 22.9.95 as contended by the complainant. The dispute assumes importance as premium was paid only on 21.9.95 for two quarters of May and August. It is also the contention of the LIC that the amount received on 21.9.95 was in respect of the quarter ending May and the assured was still in default of premium due in the quarter ending August, 1995. Case set up by the complainant was that Deena Nath Singh was ailing and when he was taken for treatment to Varanasi while crossing the bridge on river Ganga between Balia and Varania, Deena Nath Singh died and his body was thrown in the river flowing underneath the bridge. It is alleged that dead body of Deena Nath Singh was water cremated . In support of his claim, complainant also brought on record a certified copy of the death certificate issued by the Block Development Officer issued on 26.9.95. This certificate was prepared on the statement made by the complainant to the Block Development Officer that Deena Nath Singh died on 22.9.95. However, investigation by the LIC showed that Deena Nath Singh had died on 20.9.95 and this was based on a statement made by the Gram Pradhan of the village, head of the Panchayat under the Panchayat Raj Act. District Forum did not place any credence on the certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan as he was a political person. This was no ground to discard the certificate of Gram Pradhan since he was elected under the provisions of the Act and as rightly held by the State Commission. In the circumstances, it is difficult to believe the case set up by the complainant. State Commission, in our view has considered the whole aspect of the matter threadbare and came to the conclusion that the death of Deena Nath Singh occurred on 20.9.95 and not on 22.9.95. Since Deena Nath Singh, the deceased, was in arrears of the payment of the premium of insurance policy which lapsed and no amount could be claimed under the policy.

WE agree with the finding arrived at by the State Commission and we do not find it is a case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This revision petition is dismissed.