CHAKRESWAR DUARAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's wife late Nirupama Gogpi was working as Assistant Teacher in Goha in Gaon M.E. School, Sarupathar. Under the salary savings scheme, she had taken three policies (Policy No. 441541269 dated 28.9.2001, No. 441541268 dated 28.9.2001 and No. 441541379 dated 28.9.2001) under the salary savings scheme from the LIC. The Headmaster of the School as per contract was to deduct the premium from her salary each month and to remit the same to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. She fell seriously and was under treatment of SDM & HO Dhansiri Sub-Division with effect from 22.3.2003 to 31.5.2003. During that period, she was also not paid her salaries for want of sanction and retention of post. She being seriously ill was not in a position to know as to what had happened about the payment of premium. Eventually, she expired on 16.7.2003 leaving behind the petitioner (husband) and three minor children. On her death, the petitioner along with the death certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dhansiri, Sarupathar and other connected documents claimed the sum assured. The Headmaster of the School also by the letter dated 29.9.2003 informed the Branch Manager, LIC that the salaries for the period 1.4.2003 to 30.7.2003 was not disbursed as the budget was not available. The policies thus lapsed for non-payment of premium, though it was paid subsequently. Hence, this petition for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Insurance Company to pay the sum assured in respect of above three policies and for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The Insurance in their affidavit submitted that the wife of the petitioner obtained the policies by the salary savings scheme, and the Headmaster of the School where she was working was to deduct the premium from her salary and remit the same to the Insurance. There is no obligation on the part of the Insurance to inform the policy holder that the premium due was not paid, rather the petitioner ought to have deposited the premium of her own. It is further submitted that in the event the Headmaster deducted the premium and did not remit the same to the Insurance, they would have been liable for payment.

(3.) I have heard Mr. D. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel and Mr. P.C. Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance.