AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IT is clear from the records produced in the case that there was no concluded contract of insurance as on the date when the person who had desired to take the policy, namely, Mr. Abdul Rahim passed away. The proposal for insurance was made on 31st July, 1989. On its scrutiny by the Insurance Company, it appears to have been found that there was a disparity in the entries regarding the date of birth in the proposal form when compared with the School Leaving Certificate. In view of this, the premium payable was re-calculated and a communication as per Annexure ''B'' of page 17 of the paper-book was issued to Shri Abdul Rahim on 18.8.1989 stating that "for further consideration of the above proposal we need the requirements indicated in ITem No. 2 below" and ITem No.2 states that the balance premium of Rs. 6.90 should also be paid. We do not find any basis whatever for the assumption made by the State Commission that this letter might not have been received by Shri Abdul Rahim. Even assuming that to be so, the fact remains that the proposal had not been accepted by the L.I.C. prior to the date of death of the proposer nor had the policy been issued. In such circumstances, there was no contract of insurance which had come into operation and no liability could be fixed on the Insurance Company for the payment of the amount mentioned in the policy proposal form as payable in the event of death. The orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are clearly illegal and devoid of jurisdiction and they are hereby set aside. The complaint petition is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed