Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 21 (CHH)

KANTI BAI KOSLE v. BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA

2009-01-19

S.C.VYAS, V.K.PATIL, VEENA MISRA

body2009
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri S.C. Vyas, President: 1. This is an appeal of unsuccessful complainant whose complaint No.314/ 07 has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), vide order dated 18.09.08. 2. As per facts of the case the appellant herein is the widow of one Peelaram Kosle, who obtained life insurance policy ofRs.25,000/- from respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 on 16.08.03, the name of the policy was Jan Raksha Yojana. Premium of the policy was payable by 15th of every January, April, July and October every year. It is not in dispute that premium for the month of October, 03 was not paid in time. As per the case of the complainant on 04.01.04, premium for the month of October 03 as well as for the month of January 04 were paid together to the insurance agent for depositing the same with the LIC. The agent deposited the amount on 09.01.04. On that velY date the insured died an unnatural death by drowning in a well. Then claim for sum assured was preferred by the complainant which was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the policy had already been lapsed in the month of October 03. The same stand has been taken by the LIC in the written version also and it has been specifically pleaded that the policy had already lapsed automatically when amount of premium was not deposited, at the due date or not even within 30 days thereafter during grace period. It has been submitted that the lapsed policy could not revive even after deposit of due premiums. 3. Learned District Forum has taken into consideration the material placed before it by both parties and ultimately, dismissed the complaint. 4. The only question, which arises for consideration before this Commission is whether the policy could be termed as revived after the deposit of premium on 09.01.04. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has very vehemently argued that premium of October 03 and January 04 were collectively paid to the insurance agent respondent No.2 by the deceased during his lifetime on 04.01.04, she submitted that in this regard affidavit of complainant as well as one witness are on record, which have not been contradicted by the insurance company by filing any affidavit. She submitted that there is nothing to disbelieve the affidavit of these two witnesses, and therefore, through this evidence it is proved that insurance premiums were paid to the agent by the deceased during his lifetime. Such premium has been deposited by the agent in the insurance company, which accepted those premiums and issued receipt and thereby the policy has revived. She submitted that as all premiums have been deposited in the insurance company and have been accepted, therefore, insurance policy cannot be termed as lapsed policy and the amount under the policy is payable. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance corporation has refuted these arguments and submitted that as per the case of the complaint, herself, deceased died on 09.01.04 between 7:00 am to 12:00 noon, whereas the premiums have been paid in the office of the insurance corporation on the same day at 3:22 pm i.e. after the death of the insured. If the due premiums, on account of which policy had already lapsed, has been paid subsequently after the death of the insured then merely on account of such payment it cannot be said that the policy has revived. 7. We have considered aforesaid arguments advanced by both parties and perused the material available in the file of the District Forum. 8. From the record it is clear that dead body of deceased Peelaram was detected on 09.01.04, itself at about 1 :45 pm in the noon and some villagers found that his clothes and shoes were near the well and his body was inside the well. He was patient of epilepsy. During the inquest report it was found that he died due to drowning somewhere between 7 :00 am to 12 :00 noon in the morning. The postmortem report of the deceased also shows that he died somewhere around noon on 09.01.04. All these documents positively establish that deceased Peelaram had died in the morning on 09.01.04 and was not alive thereafter. 9. The receipt of deposit of premium which is Ex. -P2, shows that premium was deposited on 09.01.04 at 15:22 hrs. i.e. at 3:22 pm. This document itself shows that premium in the office of the insurance corporation has been deposited after the death of the insured Peelaram. 9. The receipt of deposit of premium which is Ex. -P2, shows that premium was deposited on 09.01.04 at 15:22 hrs. i.e. at 3:22 pm. This document itself shows that premium in the office of the insurance corporation has been deposited after the death of the insured Peelaram. Any amount which has been deposited as premium and has been accepted as such, after the death of the insured, cannot be legally termed as amount of premium and no benefit can be obtained on account of such deposit in respect of lapsed policy. In fact the premium has already become due on 15.1 0.03 and grace period of 30 days was available being a case of quarterly premium, then at the most by 15.11.03, the premium should have been deposited. No such deposit has been made during that period, so policy had already lapsed. In case any premium was deposited during the lifetime of the insured then it could have been taken into consideration and then in the light of this new fact, the condition of policy, whether it was still in lapsed condition or had been revived, could have been considered. But in the facts of the present case the amount was deposited in the insurance corporation after the death of the insured, then it was not the amount of premium towards a lapsed policy and so, merely by deposit with the insurance corporation in the account of a policy of a dead person, which is already in lapsed condition, no benefit of such deposit can be given to the complainant. 10. Thus we find that learned District Forum has not committed any mistake in coming to the conclusion that the policy had already lapsed and therefore, no amount was payable under that policy. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that respondent No.2 was the agent of the insurance corporation and he accepted the amount of premium, during the lifetime of the deceased, his acceptance was on be4~f of the insurance corporation and therefore, on account of this acceptance it should be held that the premium was paid to the insurance corporation in time. We do not agree with this argument. We do not agree with this argument. It is now settled position of law that premium paid to the insurance agent cannot be termed as payment of premium to the insurance corporation and no benefit in this regard can be given to complainant on account of default of insurance agent. 12. However, from the affidavit of the complainant, it is clear that the amount was paid to the insurance agent, who accepted the same on behalf of the insurance corporation, during the lifetime of the insured. He committed default in not depositing the same in the office of the insurance corporation during the lifetime of the deceased. In these circumstances he is liable to compensate the complainant for his defaults, which amounts to deficiency in service. 13. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal so far as respondent No.1 LIC is concerned, has no force and is dismissed. So far as respondent No.2, insurance agent is concerned the appeal is liable to be allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. In case of any default, he will be liable to pay this amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order. No orders as to the cost. Appeal Partly Allowed.