LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. RABUDI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena, in case No. 79/09.

(2.) CASE of the respondent -complainant before the District Forum was that policy No. 200898599 was obtained by Rahul Sharma son of complainant -Rabudi Devi (respondent herein), of the insured value of Rs. 50,000, for which he deposited Rs. 1,326 every quarterly. The appellant was the nominee. From 27.10.2001, the insured son of the appellant was lost and his whereabouts could not be traced, about which report was lodged at the police station, Bagchini. Efforts were made continuously but the insured couldnotbe found. Though presumption of death of a person can be made if the whereabouts are not known for a period of 7 years and if he is not noticed by a person by whom he was otherwise likely to be seen, there is a presumption of death. The District Forum however, directed that the amount of premium depositedby Rahul Sharma @ Banty be refunded to the appellant -nominee with interest @ 6% from 27.10.2001 and cost Rs. 1,500.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for appellant Mr. Neelesh Khare has raised two -fold contention. His first contention is that merely on account of absence of 7 years and his whereabouts not known, it does not entail presumption that he is dead. In thisbehalf learned Counselhas referred to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L.I.C. of India V/s. Anuradha, 2004 AIR(SC) 2070, in which the Supreme Court has ruled that for proving every death it is necessary that death could be correlated to the point of time coinciding with the commencement of calculation of seven years backwards from the date of initiation of legal proceedings.