KARAN PAL SINGH Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. OF INDIA
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2009-3-8
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 12,2009

KARAN PAL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.D.KAPOOR,PRESIDENT (ORAL) - (1.)APPELLANT 's son Jagpal Singh took an LIC policy of the respondent known as Jeevan Mitra Triple Cover and Endowment Plan for the period from 28.4.2001 to 28.4.2022. During the lifetime he became blind due to some illness and at the time of his death, the policy had already lapsed. Though the appellant claimed three times of the sum assured which was Rs. 1 lac on account of blindness, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 25.4.2006 directed the respondent to consider paying ex gratia payment to the appellant as the appellant had suffered near blindness during his lifetime. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.)AT the outset it may be stated that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 33,786 which includes the basic amount of Rs. 14,286 and Rs. 19,500 vested bonus towards settlement of the claim in respect of the policy.
(3.)IT is admitted case of the appellant that the next date of premium due was 28.4.2004 and the premium had been paid only upto 28.4.2003. Premiums had been paid for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 and for the year 2004, no premium had been paid. As the premium was due on 28.4.2004, the premium could be paid within grace period of 30 days i.e. upto 28.5.2004 which also has not been paid. Thus, the policy had admittedly lapsed. It is also admitted case of the appellant that the insured expired on 26.12.2004 i.e. about 8 months after the lapse of the policy.
As per terms and conditions of the policy, the policy could be revived only during the lifetime of the assured but after his death it could not be revived and, therefore, the position as it stood was that the death occurred after 8 months of lapse of the policy. The appellant lodged a claim and the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 33,786 which included the basic amount of Rs. 14,286 and vested bonus of Rs. 19,500. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that as per the policy, the respondent should have paid the full amount i.e. three times the amount assured, but a perusal of the terms and conditions shows that there is no such condition. The contention that deceased became nearly blind before his death and therefore he should have been paid the amount of claim three times of the sum assured, cannot be accepted because three times of the sum assured is payable only when some permanent injury is caused due to some accident solely and directly caused by some outward, violent and visible means and such injury should be within 180 days of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes resulting in the death of the life assured.



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