ASHOK JAIN vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.04.2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in First Appeal no. 448 of 2011, by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 11.02.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar (in short, ''the District Forum ''). The District Forum had also dismissed the complaint of the complainant/petitioner. Thus, the revision petition is directed against current findings of two Fora below.

THE facts are that the insurance claim of the petitioner (wife and nominee) for the insurance policy in favour of her late husband Adesh Kumar Jain was repudiated by the respondent insurance company. This was on the ground that the insurance policy obtained by the State Bank of India Officers Association was cancelled by the insurance company by its notice dated 16.08.2002, whereas the said Adesh Kumar Jain died on 13.10.2005. Both the Fora below held that cancellation of the Group Insurance Policy of which the late Adesh Kumar Jain was a beneficiary was valid in that the insurance company had informed the State Bank of India Officers Association (Respondent no. 3 here and before the State Commission and OP no. 3 before the District Forum) in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and refunded the balance premium for the un-expired period of the policy. I have heard Mr. Ch. G. R. Nagar on behalf of the petitioner. He insisted that according to the terms of the insurance policy (condition no. 5), it was incumbent on the insurance company to inform the deceased Adesh Kumar Jain also about the cancellation of the policy. This contention was based on his interpretation that Adesh Kumar Jain was recorded in the schedule of the policy as "the Insured Person " and condition no. 5 required a notice to be given to the insured person.

CONDITION no. 5 of the insurance policy reads as under: "5. The company may at any time by notice in writing cancel this policy, provided that the company shall in that case return to the insured the then last paid premium less a pro-rata part thereof for the portion of the current insurance period which shall have expired. Such notice shall be deemed sufficiently given if posted addressed to the insured at the address last registered in the Company ''s books and shall be deemed to have been received by the insured at the time when the same would be delivered in the ordinary course of post ". [Emphasis supplied]

IT is thus clear that in cancelling the insurance policy in question, the insurance company needed to write to "the Insured " and not to "the Insured Person ". Perusal of the Certificate of insurance shows that the State Bank of India Officers Association, Chandigarh Circle was recorded as the "Insured ", whereas, Adesh Kumar Jain was recorded as the "Insured Person ". In other words, for cancellation of the policy it was sufficient for the insurance company to send notice only to the "insured ", viz., the State Bank of India Officers Association, Chandigarh Circle. It is not in dispute that this was done by the insurance company. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not valid and cannot be accepted. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost.