Full Judgment
(Per Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties, the Insurance Company, against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Srikakalum directing them to pay the assured sum together with bonus with interest at 12% per annum from 30.03.2001, the date of death of the assured, till the date of realization, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,500/- towards litigation expenses and costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband Dharma Rao had taken an insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- commencing from 28.03.2000. While so, on 30.03.2001 he committed suicide. Since it was after expiry of one year, she was entitled to the death benefits together with compensation of Rs.10,000/ and costs.
3. The Insurance Company resisted the case. While admitting the issuance of policy, it alleged that since the life assured died on 30.03.2020 the death will not be covered under the policy, under the terms the death should not occur before one year from the date of policy. The assured had paid the premium amount on 30.03.2000 evidenced under Ex.A.1 receipt. He died by committing suicide on 30.03.2001 viz within 11 months 29 days after commencement of the policy and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got the documents Exs.A.1 to A.6 marked, while the Insurance Company got its documents marked as Exs.B.1 to B.12.
5. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the policy commenced from 28.03.2000, and the death had occurred one year after issuance of the policy. The complainant, being nominee, was entitled to the assured sum together with bonus, etc.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in its correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the complainant had paid the first premium amount on 30.03.2000. The assured died within one year from the date of commencement of the policy, and therefore, the complainant was not entitled to the amount. At any rate, interest was on higher side and therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts and law?
8. It is not in dispute that the policy was issued in the name of the deceased Dharma Rao, the husband of the complainant, commencing from 28.03.2000 to 28.03.2020 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, vide Ex.A.2 policy. The assured committed suicide and died on 30.03.2001, vide Ex.B.1. The only question that crops up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the amount covered under the policy? A perusal of Ex.A.2 policy shows that the policy commenced from 28.03.2000. The fact is the assured had paid the first premium amount on 30.03.2000. Having issued policy commencing from 28.3.2000, the Insurance Company is estopped from taking the plea that the risk commences from 31.3.2000. In view of the fact that the death was occurred on 30.3.2001, the Insurance Company cannot turn round and allege that the death was prior to one year to the commencement of the policy. Clause (6) of the policy reads:
â6. Suicide: The policy shall be void if the life assured commits suicide (whether sane or insane at the time) at any time on or after the date on which the risk under the policy has commenced but before the expiry of one year from the date of this policy and the corporation will not entertain any claim by virtue of this policy except to the extent of a third partys bonafide beneficial interest acquired in the policy for valuable consideration of which notice has been given in writing to the office to which premiums under this policy were paid last, at least one calendar month prior to death.â
When the death was after one year, necessarily the Insurance Company had to pay the amount covered under the policy. At no stretch of imagination it can be said that the risk of the policy commenced from 30.03.2000 contrary to the fact noted in the policy. The compensation and costs that were awarded cannot be said to be high and it is moderate. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks. The amounts that were deposited by the appellants be transmitted to the District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam in order to enable the complainant to withdraw the same.