POST MASTER, MAIN POST OFFICE BHATTU KALAN, TEHSIL & DISTRICT FATEHABAD HARYANA Vs. SAVITRI DEVI WIDOW OF AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition no. 1482 of 2014 has been filed against the order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 713 of 2013.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the respondents/ complainants are that the husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondent no. 2, namely, Amar Singh had purchased an insurance policy no. HY 161986 US dated 09.03.2010 from petitioner no. 1, on depositing ? 1050/-. Thereafter, amount of ? 6237/-, after deducting ? 63/- as concession was deposited with the petitioners for the period April 2010 to September 2010, vide receipt no. A 1059. The next due amount was ? 7570/- for the period October 2010 to April 2011 which along with surcharge was deposited with the petitioners vide receipt no. 676 dated 07.03.2011. Husband of the respondent Amar Singh died on 11.04.2011 and before his death, the said insurance policy was continuing as on 07.04.2011 and all the installments had already been deposited and the next installment was due in May 2011. Except the respondents, there is no other legal heir of the deceased Amar Singh, therefore, they were entitled for the insured amount of ? 1,20,000/-. The respondent had intimated about the death of Amar Singh to the petitioners and had also deposited all the requisite documents with them but despite that no insurance claim had been granted to the respondents. Vide letter no. LY/ HY 161986 US/ SC/ 6 dated 19.12.2011, the respondents have been intimated about the closing of the said case on account of lapsing of the policy on 01.04.2011. Respondents averred that the said policy had not lapsed because receipt no. 676 dated 07.04.2011 for payment of installment of ? 7570/- for the period from October 2010 to April 2011 along with surcharge to the tune of ? 220/- were deposited with the petitioners. The respondents got served a legal notice to the petitioners on 25.04.2012 requesting them to make the payment of insurance within 60 days but to no avail. Due to the act and conduct of the petitioners the respondents have suffered mental agony and harassment which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

(3.) The petitioners/ opposite parties in their joint written statement have stated that the said policy no. HY 161986 in the name of late Amar Singh was not maintainable as the respondents have preferred a claim on a void and a lapsed policy. As per the terms of the contract, this policy was required to be converted it into a live policy under the heading revival of discontinued policy. The insured Amar Singh died on 11.04.2011, but before his death, the deceased had paid the premium for the period from October 2010 to April 2011 on void policy without getting it revived as required under Section 56 of RPLI Rules, 2011 and condition nos. 7 & 8 of the Terms of the contract given on the reverse of the policy. As per condition no. 5, of the terms of contract, the premium shall be paid in advance on the first day of each month. However, grace period is allowed up to the last working day of the month. Since, the insured had deposited premium from October 2010 to April 2011 on 07.04.2011, therefore, the said policy became void and lapsed on 01.04.2011 as per Rule 56 of RPLI Rules, 2011. The said policy was required to be revived for keeping it active. The petitioners had rightly rejected the claim as the same was claimed on a lapsed policy. Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioners.