PALVINDER KAUR ALIAS PARMINDER KAUR vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

THIS case is concluded against the complainant by our order in First Appeal No. 234 of 1992, Life Insurance Corporation of India v/s. Smt. Dhanpati, District Jind, decided on the 19th of August, 1992. Even otherwise for the limited purpose of relegating the complainant to her ordinary remedies at civil law, it is unnecessary to delve deeply into the facts and the merits.

IT suffices to mention that Palvinder Kaur @ Parminder Kaur, complainant is the widow of Shri Piara Singh deceased who had taken out a Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. One lac on the 21st of July, 1990. The first premium therefore to the tune of Rs. 3811/- was paid on the date aforesaid. The second premium was due on the 28th of February, 1991 and the complainant''s case is that the same was paid late on the 20th of August, 1991 vide receipt No. 3130. IT has been further alleged that the subsequent premium of Rs. 3883/20 paise was paid vide receipt No. 2701 dated the 9th of December, 1991, somewhat curiously a day prior to the insured''s death. Shri Piara Singh admittedly died on the 10th of December, 1991 consequent to injuries suffered in an accident and as the nominee in the insurance policy, the complainant lodged her claim with the opposite party therefore. However, the same was repudiated on the firm ground that the insurance cover stood terminated on the 28th of February, 1991 because the second premium had not been duly paid and the policy was lying in a lapsed condition from the said date. It is alleged in the complaint that the insurer''s are stopped from taking the plea that the policy had lapsed or that the amount had been wrongly tendered on the 9th of December, 1991. Unable to get redress from the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter called the ''LIC''), the present complaint has been preferred on the 8th of August, 1992.

In resolutely defending the complaint, the LIC took up a number of preliminary objections to which a reference is now unnecessary because they stand disposed off by a separate speaking order dated the 27th of October, 1992. On merits, the factual position of the insurance taken out by the deceased was admitted. The firm plea was that the second premium was due on the 28th of February, 1991 which was sought to be tendered belatedly in August, 1991 by depositing Rs. 3500/- in cash and a sum of Rs.426/- by cheque, and a receipt therefore was issued. However, the cheque in question was dishonored vide advice dated the 26th of August, 1991. Since this amount was not tendered despite intimation to the policy-holder, the relevant entries of the premia were reversed and Rs. 3469/- were refunded by a cheque dated the 19th of November, 1991 which was duly encashed by the insurer. Consequently, the policy stood completely terminated thereby.

IT was however, pointed out that only a day prior to the death of the deceased, on the 9/12/1991 apparently to over-reach the insured an attempt was made to deposit a sum of Rs. 3797.00 against the policy for which by mistake receipt for the premium due on the 28th was issued even though the policy was lying lapsed since the 28/2/1991. However, on the very same day, the mistake having been discovered, intimation was sent to the deceased policy-holder and a cheque under registered cover for the amount was also forwarded to him on the 27/12/1991, which inevitably was returned because of the death of the deceased on the 10th of December, 1991 regarding which intimation was given to the insurer only on the 28th of December, 1991. The repudiation of the claim in these circumstances was sought to be firmly reiterated. In support of her claim, the complainant rested herself content with putting in a self-serving affidavit dated the 4th of November, 1992 and she was cross-examined on behalf of the opposite party. Reliance was sought to be placed on the documents the authenticity of which was not challenged.

ON behalf of the opposite party, primal reliance was on the documentary testimony, Annexures R.1 to R.13. The detailed affidavit of Shri C.R. Dang, the Assistant Administrative Officer (Claims) of the LIC at Karnal was put in who was cross-examined at some length on behalf of the complainant. The statement of Shri R.S. Sharma of the Punjab National Bank was also adduced to the effect that a cheque in favour of Shri Piara Singh deceased for a sum of Rs. 3469/- issued by the opposite party to refund the premium was duly encashed on the 6th of December, 1991. 7-A. Mr. A.K. Bakhshi, the learned Counsel for the complainant had primarily harped on the allegation that the deceased was an illiterate person who had depended on Shri Darshan Lal, an agent of the LIC. It was alleged that the insurer had paid the whole amount of the second premium to the said Darshan Lal who had apparently defaulted in tendering it partly in cash and partly in his own cheque for Rs. 426/- which was dishonored. The allegation was that the LIC was responsible for the alleged mis-conduct or mis-appropriation of their agent Darshan Lal and consequently was stopped from alleging that the policy had lapsed. Further, the somewhat curious argument was that even though the authenticity of the documents tendered by the opposite party were never challenged on the record, they were sought to be labelled as fabricated or forged. We are afraid that there is no merit in the submission sought to be raised on behalf of the complainant. Firstly there is no evidence worth the name that the deceased had paid the total amount of the second premium over to Shri Darshan Lal aforementioned. It had to be conceded before us that no receipt was issued by the said Darshan Lal. In any case, none has been'' remotely proved or even alluded to on the present record. However, what gives the lie direct to the stand with regard to the payment of the premium to the agent is the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents), Regulations, 1972.The relevant Regulation is No. 8 delineating the functions of the agents of the LIC and Clause (4) thereof deserves notice in extenso : - 8. Functions of agents : xx xx xx (4) Nothing contained in these regulations shall be deemed to confer any authority on an agent to collect any moneys or to accept any risk for or on behalf of the Corporation or to bind the Corporation in any manner whatsoever." It would be manifest from the above that statutory instructions or regulations of the LIC give no authority to an agent to collect any money on behalf of the Corporation, and any payment to them is no discharge whatsoever, for money due to the Corporation itself. Indeed the same would be in contravention of the mandate quoted above. The primal submission on behalf of the complainant must therefore, fail.

EQUALLY Mr. Bakhshi''s suggestion that the documentary evidence of the opposite party on the record is suspicious or fake would in essence boom-rang against his case in the consumer jurisdiction. It bears repetition that the authenticity of these documents was not challenged. Even otherwise, it is not easy to assume that a virtually statutory body like the Corporation would stoop to the level of forging or fabricating the evidence. Apart from this, it is elementary that in a consumer dispute such a disputed question as to the execution or fabrication of documents cannot be determined in a primarily summary jurisdiction. These are ticklish and complicated issues which if raised must be relegated to the Civil Court where alone they can be properly adjudicated upon.

WHAT indeed deserves highlighting herein is the fact that admittedly the second premium was due on the 28th of February, 1991. On the complainant''s own showing, this was sought to be paid belatedly after a delay of six months on behalf of the insurer. It is again common ground and indeed established that part payment of the said premium by way of a cheque of Rs. 426.00 was dishonored and despite notice to the insurer the amount was not paid. However, to crown it all is the fact that by a communication dated the 20th of November, 1991 Annexure R.8, an amount of Rs. 3469/-, calculated to be the requisite one for terminating the policy, was sent by cheque to the deceased. It is established beyond doubt that the said cheque was duly encashed by the deceased on the 6/12/1991. It is, therefore, writ large on the record that the policy stood lapsed or terminated w.e.f. the 28th of February, 1991 and the deceased was conclusively told about the same. Once that is so, the ratio of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Dhanpati (supra), would be obviously attracted. It is common ground herein that the necessary formalities for reviving a lapsed policy were not at all taken. In the aforesaid case, it was concluded as under : - " From the aforesaid discussion, it is somewhat manifest that the true import of Clause 3 is that the revival of a disconnected policy ca n only be by the express and conscious violation of the Corporation. This militates against any automatic or deemed revival. Such revival is not a matter of right for the insured and it would not automatically follow on the mere submission of proof with regard to the good health of the insured or a tender of the arrears of premium due."

In the light of the aforesaid ratio, it is somewhat evident that the complainant cannot succeed within the consumer jurisdiction.

Lastly, the somewhat curious if not suspicious attempt to resurrect the policy by an attempt to pay the premia one day prior to the death of the deceased whilst he lay mortally injured in the hospital has only to be noticed and rejected. Mr. Brij Jit Singh has forcefully pointed out that advance receipts are usually prepared by the LIC for purposes of efficiency and on the 9th of December an ingenious attempt to tender an amount against the same was made for the reviving of the policy which stood clearly lapsed. The mistake was discovered immediately and the entries were reversed and vide R. 10 dated the 9th of December, 1991, the Branch Manager of the LIC despatched the communication highlighting the error in accepting a cheque of Rs. 3883/-erroneously against the said policy. Vide Annexure R.1 1, dated 27th of December, 1991, a cheque for the said amount was duly sent back to the deceased but obviously could neither be received or encashed because of his death earlier on the 10th of December, 1991. It is significant that the complainant did not intimate the LIC about the death of her husband till latter on the 28th of December, 1991 vide Annexure 12.

IN the aforesaid context it cannot even remotely be said that the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is either arbitrary or fanciful. There is thus not the least deficiency in service which can be laid at the door of the LIC with regard to the insurance service they had undertaken to render to the deceased. The complaint therefore, must fail and is hereby dismissed. The complainant is relegated to her ordinary remedies before the Civil Court as she may be advised. Complaint dismissed.