AMITA RASTOGI Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the widow of the insured Om Parkash Rastogi, having lost in the State Commission. 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that late Mr. Rastogi had obtained a Life Insurance Policy for Rs. 1 lakh in June, 1978. Policy was to mature after 15 years in June, 1993. It is the case of the complainant that when this policy lapsed in mid-1986, on account of non-payment of premium, he met the LIC Authorities repeatedly and wrote to LIC on 5.9.1988 and again in July, 1991 but the policy was not revived. As the policy lapsed as a result of non-revival in mid-1991, he approached higher authorities of LIC's Zonal Office and Head Office. In spite of assurances, it was not revived. This amounts to a deficiency in service and claiming several reliefs moved the State Commission who after hearing both the parties and going through the evidence and material on record dismissed the complaint hence this appeal. During the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission, the complainant unfortunately died and the appeal has been filed by the widow of the complainant and the 'nominee' under the said policy.

(2.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it is not disputed that the complainant had a valid policy having been taken on 28.6.1978. Upon the lapsing of the policy, the complainant immediately contracted the respondent to revive the policy but to no avail. His having written two letters in September, 1988 and July, 1991 have not been denied. It was the duty of the respondent to revive the policy on being approached, their failure to do so is a clear case of deficiency in service. The complainant is informed only in 1991 that policy cannot be revived as five years period had expired since the lapse of the policy. The major lapse is that the complainant was never informed of the non-payment of premium. They have a duty of care towards the policy holders. For this, he relied on III (1993) CPJ 1752, II (1993) CPJ 493, and 1991 (1) CPR 227. On all these grounds the order of the State Commission needs to be set aside and the complaint be allowed with costs.

(3.) On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that there has been no lapse or deficiency on the part of the respondent. It is the whole conduct of the complaint which must be seen from the beginning to appreciate his subsequent conduct. At the time of getting the policy, premium is deposited by cheque, the cheque is dishonoured. Again a cheque issued for payment of quarterly premium in March, 1980 is dishonoured. For the first time the policy lapses in September, 1980, this is revived on request and a loan obtained from LIC against the policy; the policy again lapses in September, 1982, and is revived again on the request of the complainant in June, 1983. The policy again lapses for non-payment of premium due in June, 1983 which is revived in December, 1985, adjusting the premium from the loan and the remainder amount given to the complainant. For the last time the policy lapsed on 28.3.1996. Complainant made a request for revival after almost two and a half years in September, 1988 but did not pursue; a further request was made in October, 1990 again after two years wherein the complainant was informed through an endorsement on the letter dated 5.10.1990 that he should personally call on the Development Officer which he did but only on 17.7.1991 by which time the period of two years for revival of the policy had lapsed. In these circumstances and especially in the light of continuing conduct of the complainant, no deficiency of service stands proved against the respondent. Had the matter been pursued by the complainant the respondent would have revived the policy as was done thrice earlier. The difficulty was that even at the late stages the complainant was linking payment of premium for the lapsed period against loan to be given by the respondent, when there were no sufficient amount under that head the complainant having taken loan from time to time to pay the premiums of lapsed policies as well as taking the money home. No case is made but to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission, hence this appeal needs to be dismissed with costs.