SEETA BAI SINHA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of complainant No.1 and father of the complainant Nos. 2 to 5 had taken Janta personal Accident Insurance Policy for the period 9.1.1999 to 8.1.2011 for Rs.5,00,000/-. The insured died on 6.7.2005 accidentally while working in the factory. A claim was preferred with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company informed that the policy in question has already been cancelled. The complainant approached the District Forum, wherein the stand taken by the Insurance Company was that the policy in question was cancelled on 26.11.2001 and the amount of premium paid by the insured had been refunded to him by registered post during his lifetime. It was pleaded by the Insurance Company that no contract of insurance was subsisting on the date of death of the insured. The District Forum did not accept the defence of the insurance and allowed the complaint, which was challenged by the Insurance Company before the State Commission. The State Commission referred to Condition No. 5 of the policy, which provides that the insurer has right to cancel the policy at any time after giving notice to the insured on the address mentioned in the proposal form and after such notice, the policy would be treated as cancelled. There is no dispute that the policy could be cancelled subject to compliance of condition prescribed. The State Commission found that notice was duly sent and certificate of posting issued by the postal authority was placed on record by the insurance company. The notice had been issued on the address given in the proposal form. The main contention raised on behalf of the complainant was that there has been interpolation of the address in the proposal form by the insured inasmuch as the address of the complainant was Qtr. No.2/A, Street No.30, Sector-6, Bhilai, Teh. & Distt. Durg (C.G.), whereas notice was sent on the address Qtr. No.6/A, Road No.30, Sector 6, Bhilai. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted before us that the interpolation in the address in the proposal form has been made by the Insurance Company so as to defeat the claim of the complainants. There is no dispute that the notice was in fact sent by registered post and the said fact has been proved by the Insurance Company by placing on record the notice as well as the certificate of posting by registered post. When a notice is sent by registered post, there is a presumption that a registered letter was delivered on the address mentioned on the registered envelope. There is nothing on record to suggest that registered post letter was received back by the Insurance Company undelivered. There is also no material on record to accept the contention of the complainant that the quarter number was changed by the Insurance Company in the proposal form. Besides this, the postal authorities ensure that the registered letter is delivered to the party whose name is written on the envelope. It is apparent that Qtr. No. 2/A and Qtr. No. 6/A would be in close vicinity of each other and the registered letter had been delivered to the addressee whose name was mentioned in the envelope; namely, that of the insured. In our opinion, the view taken by the State Commission is well founded and does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.