9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st 21, 1995 and premium amount of Rs. 5215/- was paid on the same day. According to the complainant, the next instalment of premium was due on August 21, 1996. Ashok Kumar \026 insured, however, died in an accident on August 2, 1996 at Barmana as the boundary wall of the D.A.V. School fell on him and he was crushed under the debris. The complainant, in view of the subsisting policy, requested the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant, but under the lame and false excuses, the Insurance Company did not pay the amount. Finally, by a communication dated August 11, 1997, the Insurance Company refused to pay any amount. The deceased was unmarried. It was asserted by the complainant that he was the nominee of deceased Ashok Kumar as the father. Since the amount was not paid, the complainant was constrained to approach the District Forum. Accordingly a claim of Rs.2,50,000/- was made along with interest and damages on account of mental torture and financial loss suffered by the complainant. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim of the complainant by filing a written reply. A preliminary objection was raised agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment. The State Commission relied upon the decision of this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another v. Dharam Vir Anand, (1998) 7 SCC 348 : JT (1998) 7 SC 167. The Insurance Company approached the National Commission against the orders passed by the Fora below. The National Commission, however, dismissed the Revision Petition by observing that concurrent findings had been recorded that the policy was subsisting and the Insurance Company was liable under the said policy. According to the National Commission, since the first premium was paid on August 21, 1995, the next premium was due on August 21, 1996. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Fora below have committed an error of law in holding that the policy was subsisting. The counsel admitted that the first premium was paid on August 21, 1995, but in the proposal dated August 19, 1995, a request was made to make the policy effective with back date from April 28, 1995. The request was granted by the Insurance Company and the policy was issued. The period of policy was thus from April 28, 1995 to April 28, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The policy stated that the date of commencement was April 28, 1995 and the date of maturity would be April 28, 2010 as it was for a period of fifteen years. It is further stated that the policy of assurance shall be subject to the conditions and privileges printed on the back of the policy. On the back of the policy, those conditions and privileges have been printed. Condition 2 thereof, is material for our purpose and reads thus: 2. Payment of premium: A grace period of one month i.e. not less than 30 days will be allowed for payment of yearly, half-yearly, or quarterly premiums and 15 days for monthly premiums. If death occurs within this period and before the payment of the premium then due, the Policy will be valid and the sum assured paid after deduction of the premium as also the unpaid premium/s falling due before the next anniversary of this Policy. If the premium is not paid before the expiry of the days of grace, the Policy lapses. (emphasis supplied) From the above condition, it is abundantly clear that payment of premium due had to be made within a grace period of one month. If such payment was made within the said period, the policy would be treated as val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in the event of death of life assured occurring as a result of intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide, insanity, accident other than an accident in a public place or murder at any time, on or after the date on which the risk under the policy has commenced but before the expiry of three years from the date of this policy, the Corporation s liability shall be limited to the sum equal to the total amount of premiums (exclusive extra of premiums, if any), paid under the policy without interest. Provided that in case the life assured shall commit suicide before the expiry of one year reckoned from the date of this policy, the provisions of the clause under the heading Suicide printed on the back of the policy . (emphasis supplied) The Court observed that Clause 4-B made it crystal clear that the date on which the risk under the policy commenced was different from the date of the policy. The Court took into consideration two expressions, viz., the date on which the risk under the policy has commenced and the date of the policy . The Court held that since two expressions were used which obviously referred to two different periods, effect must be given to both of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
