M. DEIVANAI vs Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India

THE complainant''s husband had taken a Life Insurance Policy on 12.3.1992 from the 3rd opposite party for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and he had also paid a sum of Rs. 19,139/- on 28.12.1991. While so the insured died on 1.1.1993. THE complainant as the sole nominee under the insurance sent a claim statement on 8.7.1993 to the office of the 2nd and 3rd opposite party namely the Senior Divisional Manager and the Branch Manager. Now the case of the complainant is that no action was taken by the opposite parties in spite of several reminders. It was only on 3.5.1994 they informed the complainant that as the deceased committed suicide within one year from the date of the policy, the policy had become null and void in terms of the policy contract and therefore nothing was payable. According to the complainant this stand taken by the opposite party is untenable and without merits. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint has been filed claiming the said insured amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, damages for mental agony Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest on these amounts.

THE opposite parties contended that though the proposal for insurance was on 22.12.1991 it was received by the opposite party''s branch office only on 31.12.1991 for their consideration and since the sum proposed was high the proposal papers were forwarded to the higher authorities at the opposite party''s divisional office and after consideration it was decided to undertake liability on 10.1.1992 and the policy document incorporating all the conditions and privileges was issued on 12.3.1992. Thus the date of the policy was 12.3.1992. THE insured committed suicide on 1.1.1993. As per the conditions in the policy if the insured commits suicide within one year from the date of the policy, the policy becomes void. In view of this condition the complainant is not entitled to any amount from the opposite parties. THErefore the claim is liable to be dismissed. The point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim as alleged and if so what reliefs can be granted to the complainant.

Ex. Al is the insurance policy. This shows that the date of commencement of the risks is 28.12.1991. But the date of the policy is 12.3.1992. Regarding this there is no dispute. Clause 6 in the policy relates to suicide by the insured. This clause reads as follows : "Suicide: This policy shall be void if the Life Assured commits suicide (whether sane or insane at the time) at any time on or after the date on which the risk under the policy has commenced but before the expiry of one year from the date of this policy and the Corporation will not entertain any claim by virtue of this policy except to the extent of a third party''s bona fide beneficial interest acquired in the policy for valuable consideration of which notice has been given in writing to the office to which premiums under this policy were paid last, at least one calendar month prior to death."

Now the question is whether the one year commences from the date of risk i.e., 28.12.1991 or from the date of policy i.e., 12.3.1992. Clause 6 clearly says that one year commences from the date of policy. That means it commenced from 12.3.1992 and not from 28.12.1991 which is the date of commencement of the risk. Since the suicide occurred on 1.1.1993 i.e., within one year from the date of policy i.e., 12.3.1992, under Clause 6 the policy becomes void. The contention of the complainant that the one year commence from 28.12.1991 i.e., the date of risk cannot at all be accepted. The Supreme Court in a similar case in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Shri Dharam Vir Anand, III (1998) CPJ 3 (SC)=Civil Appeal No. 5063 of 1993 arising out of S.L.P. No. 10830 of 1993 has clearly laid down that the one year time commences from the date of policy and not from the date of risk.

IN this view of the matter, we hold that the policy had become void and that being the case the complainant cannot be entitled to the amount claimed. In the result therefore the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Complaint dismissed.