Judgment:
Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1) This appeal has filed by Org. Complainant. The complaint dismissed by District Consumer forum, Sangli (âForum below in short) in Consumer Case No.401/2008 order dated 06/11/2008
2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:
Complainant filed complaint against L.I.C. Office, Satara. According to the Complainant his brother Mohan had taken insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- from O.P. office on 10/10/2005. On 21/11/2005 his brother Mohan died in an accident. Since, he himself was nominee, he filed the petition and submitted it to L.I.C. The L.I.C. repudiated the claim by sending letter dated 10/01/2007. According to the Complainant, his brother Mohan had filed proposal form and gave all documents required for the policy on 10/10/2005 itself but, O.P.-L.I.C. delayed to issue the policy. The Complainant pleaded that unnecessarily by resorting to unfair trade practice L.I.C. repudiated his claim and therefore, he filed consumer complaint seeking Rs.1,00,000/- towards the policy with interest @ 18 % p.a. and he also claimed Rs.13,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and costs. He filed certain documents and affidavit in support of complaint.
3) Org.O.P. had filed their written statement at Exh.9 and pleaded that the deceased Mohan Daji Kolekar had submitted a proposal form on 10/10/2005 for sum of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of Endowment policy. The said policy term was for 16 years but the date of birth mentioned in the proposal form and the date of birth found in the birth certificate was different, therefore, said deceased Mohan D.Kolekar was directed to pay an extra premium with reference to the birth date mentioned in the birth certificate. Initially deceased Mohan had deposited lesser amount of the premium. As such, on 10/10/2005 the proposal form submitted by Mohan Kolekar was kept pending. The O.P. further pleaded that Mohan Kolekar had mentioned false date of birth in his proposal form. Mohan Kolekar was directed to pay an extra premium. Thereafter policy proposal was accepted and policy was issued on 28/12/2005 mentioning the date of commencement of risk as on 23/11/2005. But, in the meantime on 21/11/2005 Mohan Kolekar expired. He expired before the commencement of risk policy and as such, L.I.C. pleaded that before the commencement of risk of policy deceased Mohan expired and because of that, the claim was not payable to his nominee. Before the acceptance of policy the proposer had expired and this expiry of Mohan D.Kolekar was withheld from L.I.C. and therefore, policy was issued to Mohan Kolekar w.e.f. 23/11/2005. The L.I.C. therefore, pleaded that they are not liable to pay any amount under the policy to the nominee of deceased Mohan Kolekar and they pleaded that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
4) On the basis of document placed on record, the Forum below held that on 21/11/2005 when Mohan Kolekar died, there was no concluded contract of insurance between Mohan Kolekar and the L.I.C. The Forum below also held that the delay in acceptance of proposal was slow because of proposers negligence and no blame can be found with L.I.C. Therefore, Forum below also hold that L.I.C. was justified in repudiating the claim and as such, Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Hence, the complainant himself filed said appeal.
5) When the matter was called out for admission none was present for appellant. We heard head Advocate A.S.Vidhyarthi, for Respondent. We are finding that there is no substance in the appeal filed by the Complainant. In the policy issued to deceased Mohan Kolekar it was specially mentioned therein that the risk under policy shall commence w.e.f. 23/11/2005 when proposal for insurance policy was accepted by the insurance company. The insurance company required to process the documents filed along with the proposal form. The insurance company found that there was difference in the date of birth mentioned in the proposal form and in birth certificate produced by proposer. Hence, further enquiry was made and certain documents were sought. Extra premium was asked for looking to the date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate and ultimately the insurance company pleased to issue policy in which it especially mentioned that date of commencement of risk was 23/11/2005. The Complainant harped upon policy number and date of commencement which is formal number in the policy. Submission of proposal is one thing and acceptance of risk is quite another thing. When proposor fulfills deficiencies pointed by L.I.C. then only L.I.C. accepts proposal and binding contract comes into effect between parties. In this case, though the proposal was submitted by Mohan Kolekar on 10/10/2005, it was accepted by L.I.C. only on 23/11/2005 because from that date it undertook to cover risk under policy. It is not in dispute that Mohan Kolekar expired on 21/11/2005. So before his proposal was finally accepted, he had expired and it is for this reason the L.I.C. was within its right to repudiate the claim preferred under the said policy. The policy infact was also issued on 28/12/2005 and claim is to be allowed or rejected with reference of contents of policy and policy acceptance date was 23/11/2005. So in our view, the Forum below committed no error of law in repudiating the claim. The order of dismissal the complaint passed by the Forum below is just and proper and it is sustainable in law. We are finding no substance in appeal preferred by aggrieved Complainant. Hence, we pass the following order.
Order:
1) Appeal stands rejected.
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.