Decided on April 16,2004

Chairman Lic Of India Appellant
SUDHIR SHAH Respondents


- (1.) O . P. is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 19.3.1997 passed by District Forum, Munger in Complaint Case No.406/1996 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.31,000/ - only which includes the policy amount and the compensation and cost of litigation.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that complainant had obtained a money back policy which commenced from 28.11.1996. The policy was obtained under table and term 74 -15 for a sum of Rs.25,000/ - only. The mode of payment of premium was quarterly. The complainant paid premium regularly without any default from 28.1.1989 to 28.7.1989. Thereafter the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,623/ - on 27.6.1994 against three quarterly premiums due on 28.10.1989, 28.1.1990 and 28.4.1990. The reason disclosed by the complainant for delaying payment was that he has gone outside in connection with his business. The above amount included three quarterly premiums with interest thereupon. It is further case of the complainant that on 27.11.1990 he paid premium of two quarters, 3.7.1990 and 22.10.1990 amounting to Rs.1,067/ -. This also included the interest thereupon. The complainant did not pay further premium due to financial crunch on his part. The complainant on 3.11.1993 requested the O. P. to do the needful for revival of the policy but no step was taken on the part of the O. P. in this regard. On 10.12.1994 the complainant again wrote a letter to the O. P. for revival of the policy and on his personal approach to the Divisional Office the entire dues of the sum of Rs.6,250/ - was adjusted in the premium which amount was survival benefit lying with the L. I. C. and further Rs.3,426.40 was paid by the complainant in cash for the revival of the policy as per demand of the L. I. C. The complainant alleged that he thus deposited a sum of Rs.9,676.40 and prayed for the revival of the policy. The complainant received letter dated 28.8.1995 of the L. I. C. along with a cheque of Rs.3,426.40 intimating that policy cannot be revived. According to the complainant the refusal to revive the policy is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the L. I. C. and thereafter he filed the complaint before the District Forum.
(3.) THE O. P. -L. I. C. appeared and filed show cause and in brief its case is that the entire claim of the complainant is vexatious. The claim of the complainant with regard to the payment of the policy on different dates is not correct. The amount of Rs.1,623/ - was paid for three quarters with interest but the policy could not be revived since the above amount was deposited in 8 months from the first unpaid premium. The complainant deposited the premium for 28.7.1990, 28.10.1990 and 27.11.1990 of Rs.1,067/ - without declaration of good health supported by medical certificate. This was also the ground for not reviving the policy. The policy of the complainant could not be revived after a lapse of five years as per terms and conditions of the policy bond. The payment made at Lakhisarai branch of Rs.3,426.40 on 24.12.1994 was refunded back to the complainant by the said branch because the revival was not possible as per contract. The complainant has wrongly claimed Rs.6,225/ - for adjustment of amount dues on account of survival benefit. This amount was not payable to him because the policy has lapsed more than five years ago. The complainant claimed for adjustment of Rs.9,076.40 against the fact of the case. The complainant was informed by the L. I. C. with regard to lapse of the policy vide letter dated 30.12.1994 and 28.8.1995, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the L. I. C. The District Forum after considering the facts of both the parties held that L. I. C. was accepting the premium paid by the complainant after lapse of policy and has also accepted the interest thereupon, therefore, refusal to revive the policy on the ground that complainant had failed to submit doctor's certificate and the policy has remained lapsed for more than five years was not accepted and it was held that not reviving the policy and payment of the policy amount to the complainant is a deficiency in service.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.