TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. KISHAN LAL ARORA
TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Kishan Lal Arora
Click here to view full judgement.
C.VISWANATH, J. -
(1.) The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Petitioners, against order dated 11.04.2013 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. 700 of 2008.
(2.) Case of the Respondent/ Complainant is that his son, Mr Sunil Arora son of the Respondent/ Complainant obtained a Personal Life Insurance Policy from Petitioner no.2/ Opposite Party no.2 on 06.06.2005 for a sum of Rs.2.70 lakh. Quarterly instalment of the premium was fixed at Rs.3094/- which was being paid regularly through an agent Mr Neeraj Kakkar. The maturity date of the Policy was 06.06.2025. The Respondent was the nominee of his son in the Policy. One of the conditions of the Policy was that in case the Policy holder died in a road accident, he would be paid an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh, in addition to the face value of the Policy of Rs.2.70 lakh. Unfortunately, Mr Sunil Arora died in a road accident on 26.04.2007. An FIR no. 86 dated 26.04.2007 was registered at P S Jandiala. Respondent informed the Petitioners about the death of the Policy holder, along with copies of FIR, post mortem report and other relevant documents. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor. The Complainant alleged that the Surveyor demanded bribe to make a favourable report, which he did not pay. Petitioner no.1, vide letter dated 13.06.2007, informed the Complainant that the premium due on 06.03.2007 was not paid and hence the claim of the Complainant could not be considered. There was no prior intimation of lapsing of the Policy before 13.06.2007. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners, the Respondent filed a Complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer:
To pay Rs.2,70,000/- as face value of the Insurance Policy plus Rs.1,00,000/- as the death was accidental;
The Opposite Parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to him, with costs of the complaint.
(3.) The case was contested by the Petitioners/ Opposite Party. Mr Sunil Arora had applied for Invest Assure Insurance Plan, vide application dated 06.06.2005, for a sum of Rs.2.70 lakhs, where the Complainant was made the nominee. Policy No. U1500004273 was issued on 08.06.2005 with quarterly premium payment fixed at Rs.3094/-. Complainant lodged the claim on 26.04.2007 for a sum of Rs.4.20 lakhs after the life assured expired in a road accident. The Petitioners informed, vide letter dated 13.06.2007, that the Insurance Company had no liability as the premium due on 06.03.2007 was not received and the Policy had lapsed. The Policy stood lapsed at the end of 31st day from the date when the premium was due. The insured could have applied for reinstatement of the Policy, but no steps were taken and no benefit could be given. The Complaint was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.