- (1.) The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- the sum assured, alongwith compensation of Rs.10000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.7.2007 in CC.No.10/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 22.2.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The facts leading to this appeal: The complainants husband by name Iyyappan, had taken Jeevan Sanchay Plan Policy from the opposite party on 28.4.2001, for the sum assured Rs.50000/-, having the maturity period till 28.4.2016. Iyyappan died on 22.6.2003, leaving the complainant, and her minor child, entitling them to claim the benefits of the policy. After the death, when a claim was lodged, it was repudiated, as if the policy had lapsed, which is incorrect, that should be construed as deficiency in service, which had caused mental agony also to the complainant, for which apart from the assured amount, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10000/-, as compensation, thus a claim came to be filed, claiming a sum of Rs.60000/-, as a whole.
(3.) The opposite party/ appellant, admitting the policy, as well as the death of the complainants husband, resisted the claim, interalia contending, that the life assured had paid the premium, for the policy, only upto October 2002, and thereafter premium payable from January 2003 onwards, have not been paid, even within the grace period, thereby allowing the policy to lapse, that when the life assured died on 22.6.2003, the policy had no life, and therefore, the opposite party is not entitled to honour the same, on which basis alone, repudiation was made, which cannot be termed as negligent act, or deficiency in service, as the case may be.;