RAJ BALA Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1380 of 2012 -Smt. Raj Bala Vs. LIC of India by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum directing to pay paid up value was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner 's husband had purchased two insurance policies from OP/respondent on 20.1.1999 for a sum of Rs.50,000/ - and Rs.2,00,000/ -, respectively. On 10.10.2001, complainant 's husband did not return back to home from his office so; FIR was lodged on 3.11.2001 under Section 365 IPC. Complainant also informed OP about kidnapping of her husband, but OP did not inform the complainant regarding steps to be taken. Complainant paid last premium of Rs.3248/ - on 13.1.2007 and Rs. 3,211/ - on 26.1.2008. It was further alleged that complainant filed Civil Suit No. 755/2009 in the Court of Civil Judge (JD), Sonepat for declaration that her husband Jeet Singh is dead and decree to that declaration was passed on 21.5.2010. Complainant also obtained death certificate on 2.8.2010 from concerned Registrar. It was further submitted that cheque of Rs.10,000/ - issued by OP was returned by complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant was asked to keep the policy in force by making payment of due premium vide Regd. letter dated 16.5.2002. It was further submitted that date of death of Jeet Singh will be treated as 21.5.2010 and not 10.10.2001. As both the policies had already lapsed, complainant was entitled to receive paid up value of the policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties directed OP to pay paid up value of the policies to the complainant. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as petitioner 's husband was missing from 10.10.2001 and declaration regarding death had already been obtained from the Civil Court vide decree dated 21.05.2010, Jeet Singh 's death should be treated from 10.10.2001 and complainant was entitled to receive full payment of policies, but learned District Forum has committed error in allowing only paid up value and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law as policy had already elapsed before death of Jeet Singh; hence, revision petition be dismissed.