Decided on February 13,2003

Kum.Ch.Jayalaxmi Appellant


MAMATA LAKSHMANNA,MEMBER - (1.) THIS appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant in O.P. No. 212/1997 on the file of District Forum, Visakhapatnam.
(2.) THE complainants mother worked as water woman in MHR Secondary School, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur. Her mother insured her life with the opposite parties for Rs. 25,000/ - under Salary Savings Scheme. However, her mother died on 1.1.1995 due to cardiac arrest and inspite of her regularly paying the premia, the third opposite party did not settle the claim. Therefore, she issued a legal notice for which she got a reply that her case was referred to second opposite party, hence the complaint. Opposite party No. 4 filed a counter denying all the allegations. On the other hand an affidavit was filed on behalf of the opposite parties by P. John Wilson, Administrative Officer in the office of opposite party No. 4.
(3.) THE District Forum on a consideration of the material on record, found that the complainant failed to substantiate her case and dismissed the complaint. Going through the records, we find that there is no dispute that the mother of the complainant was insured on 30.3.1993 under Salary Savings Scheme and her employer was D.P.O., S.E. Railway, Bilaspur. The mode of payment was monthly premium to be deducted by the employer and paid to the opposite parties. In this connection, she gave a letter to the employer, while she herself paid for the premium for the first two months. However, on 28.12.1994 an amount of Rs. 1,448/ - was remitted by third party for the premia not paid. However, according to respondents/opposite parties, the policy had lapsed since no premia were paid from the third month onwards and Rs. 1,448/ - was remitted by somebody for revival of the policy on behalf of the deceased, since she was in hospital from 15.12.1994 and died on 1.1.1995, hence she suppressed the fact that she was admitted in hospital and undertaking treatment. As per the counter of the 4th opposite party, the monthly premium amount of Rs. 362/ - was paid and the policy commenced from 28.3.1993. The premia for the months of May, June, July, August, October and November 1993 were not paid and again premia for October and November, 1994 were not received by opposite parties, which means that initially they received the first two premiums for March and April, 1993 and subsequently they received premiums for the month of September and December, 1993. Again from December, 1993 onwards the premia were paid regularly during 1994 and only the last two premiums for October and November, 1994 were not received. Hence, at the rate of Rs. 362/ - per month the premia for the missing 8 months comes to Rs. 2,896/ - but the opposite parties received an amount of Rs. 1,448/ - on 28.12.1994 which is much less than the amount due as per their version. Therefore, it appears from the counter that initially after payment of first two premia there might have been some delay in payment of the premia for May, June, July, August of 1993 which was paid subsequently in the month of September, 1993 and again from December, 1993 onwards till September, 1994 there is no gap. Hence the premia must have been paid. However, due to lack of evidence on the part of the appellant/complainant and because the employer has not been impleaded, we are unable to know whether the premia for October, November and December were collected by the employer from the salary of the deceased or the policy was in a lapsed condition for non -payment of the premia as asserted by the respondents, opposite parties. Hence, we have no other go except to dismiss the appeal. No costs. Appeal dismissed. ;

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