LIC OF INDIA Vs. A MANGAYARKARASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the wife of one Arunachalam who died intestate on 21.11.1996. The said Arunachalam was employed as an Assistant Operator at the office of the 3rd opposite party. He had taken three policies for Rs.5,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.50,000/- and the Policy Nos. are 750750598, 750753202 and 750753965 respectively. The premiums due were deducted by the 3rd opposite party from the salary of the deceased and was remitted regularly to the L. I. C. Arunachalam was on medical leave from 3.10.1996 to 21.11.1996. On the death of her husband, the complainant made a claim for the amounts. The opposite parties rejected her claim stating that the premium amounts for the policies 2 and 3 above were not remitted in time. The non-payment of the premium was not on account of any mistake on the part of the complainant's husband. The salaries due to the complainant's husband for October and November, 1996 were drawn only on 4.2.1997 and they were sent by cheque by the 3rd opposite party on 7.2.1997. The L. I. C. accepted the premium only for the Policy No.750750598 and returned the amount of Rs.474/- by means of a cheque dated 10.6.1997. The complainant cannot be made liable for the inadvertence on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant issued a notice to the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 to 3 denied their liability. The complainant, therefore, prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- due under the policy Nos.750753202 and 750753965 and also a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and hardship.

(2.) The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a version pleading as follows : There was no deficiency on the part of these opposite parties. The insured took the policies under salary savings scheme. The said two policies were taken in 1995 and the insured died on 21.7.1996. They are early claims. Unless the premiums are paid within the time, the policies would lapse. The premiums due for October and November, 1996 were not paid in time. The cheque was received only on 7.2.1997 viz. , out of time and also after the death of the life assured. These opposite parties are within their right to receive the premium due on the first policy which is a non-early claim. If at all, it will be only the 3rd opposite party who will be directly responsible for any consequence of non-payment of premium. The provisions of the Act will not apply and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The 3rd opposite party filed a version contending as follows : The 3rd opposite party is one of the units of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Madras. Therefore, it is only the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation who can be sued and proceeded against. As such the complaint is bad for mis-rejoinder and non-joinder of proper parties. The complainant is not entitled to file the complaint against this opposite party regarding the claim since the service rendered by this opposite party is only a service free of charge. As there are other heirs, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The deceased Arunachalam went on leave from 3.10.1996 onwards. He died on 21.7.1996. He has sent leave letters on 15.10.1996 and 10.11.1996 praying for leave upto 30.11.1996 on medical grounds without medical certificate. The leave application should be followed by medical certificate. The insurance premiums had to be paid from out of his salary. Since no medical certificate was sent, the leave could not be regularised and only if the leave is regularised, his pay can be drawn and disbursed after deducting the insurance premiums. Only after his death, the complainant sent the medical certificate on 27.1.1997 and requested this opposite party to pay his leave salary which was sanctioned and disbursed on 4.2.1997. The insurance premium was deducted and sent to the 1st opposite party. The sending of premium was a service done by this opposite party free of cost. It was not an hired service. The 3rd opposite party has acted as per the bye-laws, standing orders. There is no deficiency of service. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as against this opposite party.