AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this revision petition filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the impugned order dated 24.01.2007, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in appeal No. 577/2006, "Smt. Phuleshwari Bai vs Prakash Golchha and others," allowing the said appeal, has been challenged. The District Forum Dhamatari, Chhattisgarh vide their order dated 17.01.2006 in consumer complaint No. 3/2006 filed by the present respondent No. 1/complainant Phuleshwari Bai had dismissed the said complaint, but the said order was reversed in appeal and the present petitioner/OP No. 1 was ordered to pay a sum of 30,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from 01.01.2006 to the complainant.
The facts of this case are that Smt. Phuleshwari Bai respondent No. 1 filed the consumer complaint in question against OP-1/Petitioner Prakash Golchha, who is an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and against OP-2, the LIC, stating that her husband Rajeshwar Singh, during his life time had taken the Life Insurance Policy on 28.07.2005 for 4 lakh from the LIC through the said agent and had made payment of quarterly premium of 7300/- through the said agent. Despite the deposit of the premium, the LIC did not issue the policy. The husband of the complainant Rajeshwar Singh suddenly died on 11.09.2005, following which, the complainant filed claim for payment of 4 lakh with the LIC. However, despite giving legal notice dated 18.10.2005, the payment had not been made. The complainant sought directions from the District Forum for payment of 4 lakh as amount mentioned in the policy alongwith 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
The complaint was resisted by the OP-1/Petitioner agent stating that the OP-1 had just given consultancy to the deceased husband of the complainant regarding 2 - 3 policies of the LIC only. However, the husband had not submitted the proposal form because of which the policy could not be issued. The OP-1 also stated that the husband of the petitioner had directly deposited the premium amount of 7300/- with the LIC and not through him. Since the formalities regarding the policy including the submission of proposal form, medical certificate, birth certificate were not completed, the policy was not issued. The OP stated that his job was that of just a mediator between the LIC and their clients and he was not responsible in any manner, if the policy was not issued.
The District Forum vide their order dated 17.1.2006 dismissed the complaint, saying that there was no contract of insurance concluded between the parties and hence, the LIC was not required to honour the claim of the complainant. The District Forum observed that the late Rajeshwar Singh had given the proposal for policy and also deposited the advance premium, but other formalities could not be completed. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal was accepted and a direction was given to the OP-1 Agent to pay a sum of 30,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. for deficiency in service on his part towards the deceased husband of the complainant. However, the State Commission held that the LIC was not liable to pay the claim. Being aggrieved against the said order, OP-1 agent has filed the present revision petition before this Commission.
At the time of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner/OP-1 agent had asked the deceased husband of the complainant to complete the formalities regarding the proposal form alongwith documents. He had stated this position in letter dated 16.08.2005 to the LIC. The LIC had also written letters dated 10.08.2005 and 13.09.2005 to the deceased to submit the relevant documents. The Learned Counsel stated that the petitioner was not at fault in any manner if the policy could not be issued by the LIC.
I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
From the material on record, it is clear and also admitted by the OP that the deceased Rajeshwar Singh deposited premium of 7,300/- with the LIC on 28.07.2005 and a receipt to that effect was also issued by the LIC. It is also clear that as stated by the LIC, the said amount of 7,300/- was deposited through agency code of the petitioner Prakash Golchha. It is made out from this fact that petitioner, as an agent of the LIC has played an active role in obtaining an insurance cover from the LIC for the said Rajeshwar Singh. The LIC addressed a letter dated 05.08.2005 to the petitioner agent stating as follows:- "In this subject matter we want to inform you that in your tribunal on 28.07.2005 the BOC amount of 7,300/- is deposited in the name of Shri Rajeshwar Ji whose BOC No. is 1903 and upto this date the proposal form is not deposited in this office. Please immediately deposited the new proposal form. So that the further proceedings may be completed."
It is clear from above that the LIC asked the petitioner to have the proposal form deposited so that further proceedings could be completed.
LIC wrote another letter dated 13.09.2005 although Rajeshwar Singh had died by that time, stating as follows:- "The proposed proposal form which you have sent the following requirements are necessary which is to be completed by you immediately. So that on your proposal form necessary decision can be taken:-
Special report - ECG, BST, Hemogram, HIC, Hpichogeam, Xraychest, RVA"
A perusal of the above letter that the proposed proposal form had been sent to the LIC but the medical reports were required to be submitted so that the LIC could take a decision about the issuance of the policy. In addition, there is letter dated 10.08.2005 addressed by the petitioner to the husband of the complainant asking him to submit the documents with the Branch office of the LIC. The petitioner has also stated to have informed the LIC in this regard vide letter dated 16.08.2005. It is clear from the documents on record and the averments made by the parties that the petitioner agent played an active role in arranging the policy for the deceased. Once the amount of premium had been got deposited through him, it was obligatory on his part to ensure that the necessary formalities were completed and documents submitted, so that a decision about issuance of policy could be taken by the LIC. The premium in question was deposited on 28.07.2005 and husband of the complainant, Rajeshwar Singh is reported to have died on
09.2005. There was sufficient time, therefore, to ensure that the necessary documents were got submitted before the LIC. It may be observed here that the existence of institution of an agent is a well-recognised factor in the process of obtaining the policies by the public from the Insurance companies. There may be a provision under the rules/regulations of the LIC that such agents cannot accept premium on behalf of the LIC, but once they are recognised agents of the Insurance company, they are bound in their duty towards the clients to ensure that the necessary formalities are completed promptly. Just by writing one or two letters here and there does not lead to a solution of the problem. After the premium was got deposited, the petitioner should have ensured that the needful was done in the minimum possible time and he had been appointed an agent by the LIC for this very purpose only.
Based on the discussion above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error passed by the State Commission by which they have directed the petitioner to pay a sum of 30,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from 01.01.2006. There is no force in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.