LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. GIAN WATI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Life Insurance Corporation of India has come up in appeal against the order dated 10.1.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Hissar, whereby the complaint of Smt. Gian Wati Mishra, widow of Dr. Manmohan Mishra, alleging- deficiency in service on the part of the L. I. C. in releasing the payment of the insurance policy amount on the death of her husband Dr. Manmohan Mishra, has been allowed.

(2.) The complainant had approached the learned District Consumer Forum, Hissar, with the grievance that her husband Dr. Manmohan Mishra, who was employed in the Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, had taken out an insurance policy in the sum of Rs.85,000/- by paying the first premium of Rs.6,615/- on 31.8.1992. Soon thereafter, on 7.11.1992 Dr. Manmohan Mishra met with an accident and succumbed to his injuries. The complainant lodged the claim with the LIC promptly but the same was repudiated on 27.1.1993 on the ground that LIC had not accepted the proposal as yet and the contract of insurance had not been concluded completely and as no insurance policy had been issued due to the non-availability of blood-sugar test report, the risk was not covered and resultantly the LIC was not liable to pay the insurance amount. However, during the trial of the complaint, the LIC failed to establish that vide their letter dated 22.9.1992 the blood-sugar report had been called for from the insured. In fact, no such letter was ever received by the complainant or her husband nor was there any necessity of delaying the issuance of the insurance policy on this count. In view of this position, the learned District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint.

(3.) In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the LIC has vehemently contended that unless the policy had been issued, no complete contract of insurance could be deemed to have been concluded and the question of there being any liability of the LIC to pay the insurance amount did not arise. In support of this proposition, the learned Counsel has placed firm reliance on various precedents but in the present case the factual position is wholly different which does not necessitate the adjudication of the question formulated by the learned Counsel for the LIC, and the application of the precedents to the merits of the present case. As the position stands, when all the formalities had been completed by the insured Dr. Manmohan Mishra for the issuance of 'jeevan Griha Policy' on 28.8.1992 by way of proposal and the first premium was also deposited within three days thereafter, i. e. on 31.8.1992, there was no occasion or ground for the LIC in delaying the issuance of the policy. Nothing further remained to be done by the insured. In these circumstances, the repudiation of the claim 5 months later by the LIC on the ground that LIC's officials had not issued the insurance policy, cannot be countenanced in law. Obviously, the repudiation is arbitrary and has only been made because the death had taken place so soon, i. e. on 7.11.1992. It is not a case of suppression of material facts or past history of some ailment, as the insured had died as a result of an accident. There is no allegation of any mal-practice of fraud played with the LIC, more so, when the deceased was employed as Professor of Microbiology in the Haryana Agricultural University at Hissar. Consequently we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The detailed and well-reasoned order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Hissar is upheld. The respondent shall also be entitled to costs of litigation, which are quantified at Rs.500/-.