NEESHA RANI Vs. KANTA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREM Sagar son of Kanta Rani respondent and brother of Sunil Kumar respondent had obtained the services of Neesha Rani appellant for getting himself insured on 30.06.2001 for an amount of Rs.2 lakh and he made payment of Rs.12,516/ - to the appellant as premium for which he was issued receipt dated 30.06.2001. The policy was double accident policy. Said Prem Sagar sustained injuries in an accident on 06.07.2001 and he succumbed to injuries. Respondents No.1 and 2 (in short œ the respondents ) applied to Life Insurance Corporation of India respondent No.3 for insurance claim. It was repudiated by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 08.03.2002 on the plea that the insurance policy was sanctioned on 07.07.2001 i.e. after the death of Prem Sagar. Therefore, the insurance claim was not payable. The respondents alleged that since the appellant had taken the premium for the life insurance policy on 30.06.2001, therefore, she was liable to pay the insurance claim. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondents filed the complaint against the appellant and respondent No.3 in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short œthe District Forum ) for insurance claim. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.3 filed the written reply. It was pleaded that the proposal form dated 30.06.2001 and the medical examination report dated 05.07.2001 was received in the Sangrur Branch of respondent No.3 on 07.07.2001 and these were registered on the same day. Prem Sagar had, however, died on 06.07.2001 i.e. one day earlier. Therefore, there was no valid and concluded contract between Prem Sagar life assured and the Life Insurance Corporation of India respondent No.3. However, an amount of Rs.12,516/ - charged as premium is refunded to the legal heirs of Prem Sagar. It was also pleaded that Neesha Rani appellant was an agent of proposer Prem Sagar and not of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Hence, the repudiation was legal and valid and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

(3.) NEESHA Rani appellant also filed the written reply. It was admitted that Kanta Rani was the mother and Sunil Kumar was the brother of Prem Sagar. It was also admitted that Prem Sagar had proposed for the grant of life insurance policy and she as the agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India had filled the proposal form in which Smt. Kanta Rani was shown as the nominee. She had received a sum of Rs.12,516/ - as the amount of premium. She had deposited the proposal form along with the premium amount in the branch office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 30.06.2001 itself in the presence of Pawan Kumar, Divisional Officer of the LIC and, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the appellant nor was there any deficiency in service on her part. After receiving the proposal form and the amount of Rs.12,516/ -, the Life Insurance Corporation of India had taken the next step to secure the medical fitness certificate from the proposer which was received by Sangrur Branch office on 05.07.2001. It was denied if there was no negligence on the part of the appellant and the dismissal of the complaint qua the appellant was prayed.