M DEIVANAI Vs. ZONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant's husband had taken a Life Insurance Policy on 12.3.1992 from the 3rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and he had also paid a sum of Rs.19,139/- on 28.12.1991. While so the insured died on 1.1.1993. The complainant as the sole nominee under the insurance sent a claim statement on 8.7.1993 to the office of the 2nd and 3rd opposite party namely the Senior Divisional Manager and the Branch Manager. Now the case of the complainant is that no action was taken by the opposite parties in spite of several reminders. It was only on 3.5.1994 they informed the complainant that as the deceased committed suicide within one year from the date of the policy, the policy had become null and void in terms of the policy contract and therefore nothing was payable. According to the complainant this stand taken by the opposite party is untenable and without merits. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint has been filed claiming the said insured amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, damages for mental agony Rs.2,00,000/- and interest on these amounts.

(2.) The opposite parties contended that though the proposal for insurance was on 22.12.1991 it was received by the opposite party's branch office only on 31.12.1991 for their consideration and since the sum proposed was high the proposal papers were forwarded to the higher authorities at the opposite party's divisional office and after consideration it was decided to undertake liability on 10.1.1992 and the policy document incorporating all the conditions and privileges was issued on 12.3.1992. Thus the date of the policy was 12.3.1992. The insured committed suicide on 1.1.1993. As per the conditions in the policy if the insured commits suicide within one year from the date of the policy, the policy becomes void. In view of this condition the complainant is not entitled to any amount from the opposite parties. Therefore the claim is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim as alleged and if so what reliefs can be granted to the complainant.