AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, "the State Commission") dated 16.4.2013 in first appeal No.393/2012 whereby the State Commission concurred with the order of the District forum Warangal in CC/288/2011 and dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner.
Facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner raised a consumer dispute in the District Forum Warangal alleging that his son Challa Ranadeer Reddy obtained Jeevan Anand accidental benefit policy from the opposite party for sum assured of Rs.2 Lakhs. The insurance cover commenced w.e.f. 3 rd March, 2008. The premium payable was Rs.6,270/- on half yearly basis. It is the case of the complainant that the payment of half yearly premium due on 3 rd September, 2008 got delayed. The son of the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 to pay the premium of Rs.6,270/- which had become due on 3 rd September, 2008. The opposite party refused to accept that amount and demanded the payment of Rs.7,373/- as premium. The son of the complainant protested in writing against the aforesaid demand and called for the rectification of error. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party No.1 promised to look into the matter and rectify the mistake within 10 days after calling for the entire record and asked the insured son of the complainant to come after Dasehra festival. The life assured however died due to accidental electrocution on 5 th October, 2008. The insurance claim was submitted but it was repudiated on the ground that the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of six monthly insurance premium, which became due on 3 rd September, 2008. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the insurance claim the petitioner filed the consumer complaint. The respondents/opposite parties in their written version admitted that son of the complainant had obtained the insurance policy for Rs.2 Lakhs with insurance cover commencing from 3 rd March, 2008. It is contended that the agreed premium was Rs.6,373/- payable on six monthly basis. According to the opposite parties the life assured fail to pay the premium which became due on 3 rd September, 2008 and it was not paid even within the 30 days grace period provided under the insurance contract. Thus, the insurance policy lapsed w.e.f. 3 rd October, 2008. It is the case of the opposite parties that the life assured died on 5 th October, 2008. As such the repudiation of the insurance claim was justified.
Learned District Forum on consideration of the evidence adduced and the pleadings of the parties dismissed the complaint on the premise that the insurance claim was rightly repudiated because on the date of death of the life assured the policy had already lapsed.
Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum the petitioner preferred an appeal. The State Commission on perusal of record did not find any reason to differ from the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This has led to filing of the revision petition.
The petitioner instead of making oral submissions sent a letter addressed to the Assistant Registrar showing his inability to appear in person because of physical ailment and financial difficulty and requested that the Commission may decide the revision petition on the basis of written submissions sent by post.
Undisputedly, late son of the petitioner had obtained Jeevan Anand (with profits) (with accident benefit) life insurance policy with insurance cover of Rs.2 Lakhs and date of commencement of risk was 3 rd March, 2008. On perusal of the policy it is clear that the insurance premium is Rs.6,373/- payable on six monthly basis. Clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy deals with the payment of premium which is reproduced as under: - " Payment of Premiums: A grace period of one month but not less than 30 days will be allowed for payment of yearly, half yearly or quarterly premiums and 15 days, for monthly premiums. If death occurs within this period and before the payment of the premium then due, the policy will still be valid and the sum assured paid after deduction of the said premium as also unpaid premiums falling due before the next anniversary of the policy. If the premium is not paid before the expiry of the days of grace, the policy lapses. If the policy has not lapsed and the claim is admitted in the case of death under a policy where the mode of payment of premium is other than yearly, unpaid premiums, if any, falling due before the next policy anniversary shall be deducted from the claim amount."
From the above, it is clear that one month grace period is allowed to the insured to pay the insurance premium due in order to avoid lapsing of the policy. The insurance claim of the petitioner was repudiated on the ground that last insurance premium was payable on 3 rd September, 2008 and it was not paid even within the grace period of 30 days which expired on 2 nd October, 2008. Thus, the insurance cover granted to the son of the complainant lapsed and as such the insurance claim was rightly repudiated in respect of the death of the life assured on 5 th October, 2008.
The contention of the petitioner in the written argument is that first premium was paid by the life assured on 3 rd March, 2008 against a receipt. It is contended that in the said receipt at the bottom the date of next premium due is given as 09/2008 meaning thereby that the next premium was payable till 30 th September, 2008 and if the benefit of grace period as per the condition No.2 of the insurance policy is extended to the insured, he could have paid the insurance premium due till 30 th October, 2008 and as such the Foras below were wrong in concluding that the policy had lapsed on 2 nd October, 2008 before the death of the insured. I do not find merit in this contention. On perusal of the insurance policy, it is clear that the insurance cover commenced w.e.f. 3 rd March, 2008. In the column pertaining to due date and mode of payment, it is specifically mentioned "half yearly 3 rd" meaning thereby future premiums were required to be paid on six monthly basis by 3 rd of the month in which the premium became due. Merely because in the receipt against column "next due", the next date is mentioned as 09/2008, it cannot be said that as per the contract the due date for the payment of next premium was upto the end of September, 2008. Admittedly, the life assured died on 5 th October, 2008 and till that date insurance premium was not paid despite of the fact that the grace period for making payment of premium had already expired. Thus, in my view, the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that the insurance policy had lapsed. I have perused the judgments of the Foras below. Both the Foras below have returned concurrent findings of fact by reasoned orders which cannot be faulted. In view of the discussion above, impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost.