Bangalore Urban 3rd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
No.8, 6th Floor, Sahakara Bhavan, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052.
Complaint Case No. CC/10/2153
1. Smt. Geeta Singh, Major
C/o Delhi Darbar, No.1, B.D.A. Shopping Complex, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-560 032
BEFORE:
HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah PRESIDENT
HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini Member
HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA Member
PRESENT:
ORDER
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE – 560 052.
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2011
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.2153/2010
PRESENT:
Sri T. Rajashekharaiah, B.A. L.L.B.,
PRESIDENT
Sri. H.M.Shivalingappa, B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Smt. Dr. Subhashini, M.B.B.S.,
MEMBER
COMPLAINANT -
Smt. Geeta Singh, Major,
C/o Delhi Darbar,
No.1, BDA Shopping Complex,
R.T. Nagar,
BANGALORE – 560 032.
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTY -
The Manager,
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
1st Floor, United India Building,
J.C. Road, BANGALORE.
ORDER
1. This Complaint was filed on 11.05.2010 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complaint in brief is as hereunder: The Complainant has taken an insurance policy from the Opposite Party and the date of commencement of the policy was on 28.05.2006 and she has paid the premium until 02.07.2006 and he has paid Rs.1,05,809/-, the Opposite Party should have refunded the entire amount, but the Opposite Party has refunded only Rs.19,238/-. She has given representation for continuing her policy and Opposite Party did not consider it. Not considering the representation to continue the policy amounts to deficiency in service. The cause of action for the Complaint arose on 02.07.2010 and the Opposite Party despite receiving the representation to continuing the police has failed to consider it. Hence, this Complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite Party to consider her representation and to revive the insurance policy and to pay compensation.
2. The Opposite Party has filed its version contending that the Complainant was not paying the premium amount in time. The quarterly premium due for payment in November 2008 was paid on 16.02.2009 and the next quarterly premium which was due for payment in February 2009 was paid on 28.05.2009. Both these delayed payments of premium could not be adjusted to the previous unpaid premiums since interest on the last payment was not remitted as per the terms and conditions of the policy contract. Both these payments are not accepted and they were kept under suspense as deposits. On the date of second deposit, the policy was already lapsed on November 2008. The Complainant was asked to remit the interest of Rs.192/- before 25.02.2009 and the Complainant failed to do so. The representation of the Complainant was submitted to the central office of the Opposite Party and after scrutiny of the relevant records, the central office declined to revive the policy on 10.12.2009 and it was intimated to the Complainant. It is stated that under Clause-3 of the policy, the Corporation i.e., the Opposite Party deserves the right to accept or decline the revival of the discontinued policy. Hence, in exercise of this right, the Opposite Party has taken the decision not to revive the policy. It is stated that under Clause-4 of the policy, the Complainant is not entitled for refund of the premium paid by her, if she has not paid the full premium for the first 3 years. Hence, belated premium sent by her has been returned. The Complainant was given full opportunity before deciding the question of continuation of the policy. Under Cluase-3 of the policy she is not entitled for the refund of the full amount paid by her. Hence, the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint with exemplary costs.
3. In the circumstances, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision and they are:
(i) Whether the Complainant has established the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Party?
(ii) If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?
4. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder:
i) Negative
ii) As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. POINT NO.1:- In our opinion, the contention of the Complainant is not acceptable for the following reason. The policy commenced on 28.05.2006. According to the Complainant, the premium was paid by him until 02.07.2006, hence, the premium is not paid for the entire first 3 years as required under Clause-4 of the policy.
CLAUSE-4:
“ NON-FORFEITURE REGULATIONS: If, after atleast 3 full years premiums have been paid in respect of this Policy, any subsequent premium be not duly paid, this Policy shall not be wholly void, but the Sum Assured by it shall be reduced to such a sum (paid up value) as shall bear the same ratio to the full Sum Assured as the number of premiums actually paid shall bear to the total number of premiums actually paid shall bear to the total number originally stipulated for in the Policy, provided such reduced sum be not less than Rs.250/-. The Policy so reduced shall thereafter be free from all liability for payment of the within-mentioned premium: On Policy becoming paid up the special provisions will cease to apply.”
The above Clause-4 of the policy specifically states that if the policy becomes void, after 3 years from the commencement of the policy, then some amount is refundable as per the terms of the policy. Hence, it is clear that if the policy becomes void within 3 years, the premium paid is not refundable. In this case, admittedly, the Complainant has not paid the premium for the entire 3 years, immediately after the commencement of the policy. Hence, Clause-4 applies to the facts of the case and the Opposite Party was justified in refusing to refund the premium paid by him. This refusal is in accordance with the terms of the policy. Hence, it cannot be said to be a deficiency in service.
6. The other grievance of the Complainant is that his request for revival of the policy was not considered. The Opposite Party contends that under Clause-3 of the policy, it is a discretionary for the Opposite Party and in exercise of its discretion, it has decided not to continue that policy. Hence, that decision is in exercise of the right conferred under the policy and because of it, it is not a deficiency in service. Clause-3 of the policy reads as follows;
CLAUSE-3:
“ REVIVAL OF DISCONTINUED POLICIES: If the Policy has lapsed, it may be revived during the life time of the Life Assured, but before the end of the premium paying term and within a period of 5 years from the date of the first unpaid premium, on submission of proof of continued insurability to the satisfaction of the Corporation and the payment of all the arrears of premium together with interest at such rate as may be prevailing at the time of the payment. The corporation reserves the right to accept or decline the revival of discontinued policy. The revival of the discontinued policy shall take effect only after the same is approved by the Corporation and is specifically communicated to the Life Assured.”
The above Clause goes to show that the Opposite Party has reserved right to accept or decline revival of the discontinued policy. After considering of the material facts, if the Opposite Party takes the decision not to continue the policy, it falls within the right conferred on it under Clause-3 of the policy. Hence, it cannot be said to be a deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant. The Opposite Party may take such decision as it deems fit, by taking into consideration the merits of the request made by the Complainant and its own safety. Hence, that decision of the Opposite Party cannot be reviewed by us. Hence, we do not find any deficiency in service as alleged. Hence, this point is held against the Complainant.
7. POINT NO.2:- In view of our finding on Point No.1, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The Complaint is dismissed.
This Order is pronounced on this the 23rd day of March 2011.
Dr. SUBHASHINI H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah]
PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini]
Member
[HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA]
Member