Life Insurance Corporation of India vs SURJEET KAUR

LIFE Insurance Corporation of India petitioner herein which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 25.1.2007 passed in appeal No. 428/03 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short ''the State - Commission'') whereby the State Commission has upheld the order of the District Forum directing the Petitioner to pay the insured sum of Rs. 50,000 to the Respondent along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of policy till payment, Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation.

SHRI Mangal Singh, the life assured, son of the Complainant/Respondent obtained an insurance policy No. 120793649 on 28.10.1997 for a sum of Rs. 50,000 with date of commencement as 18th July, 1997. As per terms of the said policy, quarterly premium was to be paid on or before 18th day of January, April, July and October every year. The insured did not pay the three premiums failing due on 18th April, 1998, 18th July, 1998 and 18th October, 1998 as a result of which the policy lapsed. The lapsed policy was sought to be revived on furnishing "Personal Statement/declaration Regarding Health" by depositing cash payment of Rs. 3,318 at 3.02 p.m. on 6.11.1998 (being arrears of three quarterly premiums of April July and October 1998 with interest). Taking into consideration, the Personal Statement Regarding Health/Declaration of Good Heath and deposit of arrears of premiums with interest, the revival of the revival of the policy was considered and approved by the authorized officers of the Petitioner Corporation at the "Special Camp 1998-1999 on the same date i.e. 6.11.1998. Assured died on 11.12.1999. Since the claim preferred was an early claim, i.e., death having occurred within a year of revival of the policy. Petitioner got the claim examined. Examination revealed that the life assured met with an accident in the early hours on 6.11.1998 at 4.00/4.30 a.m. at Bhedela Dhani, District Rewari in which he sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital at New Delhi on 6.11.1998 and was discharged after 13 days on 19.11.1998. Thereafter, he got treatment in Sama Nursing Home, Sirsa till 11.12.1999. Petitioner repudiated the claim of the Respondent on the ground that the policy was got revived at 3.02 p.m. on 6.11.1998 by withholding the fact regarding the accident which had taken place earlier on the same date.

RESPONDENT filed a complaint before the District Forum. Petitioner appeared and filed its written version stating that the "Respondent had not come to the Forum with clean hands and had suppressed material facts in order to mislead the Forum. It was alleged that the policy lapsed because of non-payment of three premiums due on 18th April, 18th July and 18th October, 1998 and was got revived on 6.11.98 on the basis of "Personal Statement and Declaration regarding Good Health" by suppressing the fact regarding the accident which had taken place earlier on the same date.

DISTRICT Forum allowed the complaint. Petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

ADMITTED facts are that the Respondent''s son had obtained life insurance policy for Rs. 50,000 commencing from 18.7.1997. It is an admitted case that the deceased did not pay the three quarterly premiums due on 18th April, 18th July and 18th October, 1998. The policy was revived on furnishing "Personal Statement Regarding Health/Declaration of Good Health" along with Rs. 3,318 being arrears of three quarterly premiums of April, July and October, 1998 with interest by the Authorized Officer of the Petitioner Corporation at the "Special Camp 1998-1999". Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the policy was got revived at 3.02 p.m. by withholding the fact regarding the accident in which the life insured was injured. Had this fact regarding accident been disclosed the policy would not have been revived. We do not find any substance in this submission. The policy was revived by the Authorized Officers of the Petitioner on the spot at a "special camp held in 1998-1999" on payment of Rs. 3,318 being the arrears of three quarterly premiums of April, July and October, 1998 with interest. The life assured paid the subsequent premiums for January, April, July and October, 1999. Petitioner was not justified in repudiating the claim after having revived the policy and accepting the premiums for the months of January, April, July and October, 1999.

IT is not a case of acceptance of premium after the death of assured without knowing about the death. Assured got the policy revived during his life time. He paid the post revival premiums in time which were accepted by the Petitioner Assured died on 11.12.1999 after more than one year of revival of the policy. He had remained in the hospital for 13 days only. Petitioner has not shown any co-relation between the accident and the revival of the policy. The policy was got revived in a "Special Camp held in 1998-1999" on the spot. The camp must have been organized with an advance intimation to the defaulter policy holders for on the spot revival of the policies which had lapsed Contention of the Petitioner that the assured got the policy revived because he met with an accident cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that the policy was got revived with any ulterior motive.

FOR the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same. However, the strictures passed against the officers of the Insurance Company are ordered to be deleted. Revision Petition dismissed.