w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Omprakash Rammurat Yadav v/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co Ltd.

Company & Directors' Information:- BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01132WB1919PLC003334

    First Appeal No. A/836 of 2014

    Decided On, 19 January 2016

    At, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai

    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: F.D. Vind, Advocate. For the Respondent: A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Narendra Kawde, Member

1. Aggrieved by the order date 01/09/2014 in consumer complaint CC/13/163 decided by District Forum Central Mumbai thereby dismissing the complaint, this first appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order on the ground that the complainant never subscribed to second insurance policy as alleged by the respondent insurance company.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.F.D.Vind for the appellant and Adv.A.S.Vidyathi for the respondent.

3. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant/original complainant that appellant has availed only one life insurance policy bearing no. no.004395399 on 08/02/2010. Appellant has been regularly paying the premiums through his bankers. However, the amount of Rs.12,506.43ps. was deducted against the payment of premium from his account through ECS. In all three installments were paid yet policy was lapsed for non-adjustment of the installments. Though the appellant did not subscribe for the second policy no. 003849557, yet the proposal form was prepared by the opponent and his signature was forged thereon. During the course of time, both these policies were lapsed. Main contention of the appellant original complainant is that he never subscribed to the other policy and proposal form produced by the opponent and signature thereon is forged document. However, to support his contentions no tangible evidence to disprove that he did not sign the proposal form is available on record. Only one installment under the second policy no.003849557 was paid and it was thereafter lapsed for non-payment of premium. Complainant very much sought to revive the lapsed policy that too in the month of October 2011 and paid Rs.12,500/-. Therefore, the contention that he did not avail this second policy is totally unfounded and baseless. All these issues have been approximately dealt with and appreciated by the learned District Forum and passed the reasoned order. There is no provision to refund the payment of premium already received as the life insured i.e.complainant was covered against contingency during the enforcement period of policies. Unless insurance policy accrues surrender value or paid up value after completion of specified time for each stage, no refund of premium except release of surrender value or paid-up value becomes due.

4. In view of the above, no deficiency in service can be held against the respondent/opponent insurance company and no liability can be fastened as such. Therefore, there is no scope to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the State Commission to interfere in impugned order. We hold accordingly and pass the foll

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

owing order. ORDER 1. Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 2. One set of the appeal compilation be retained and rest of the sets be returned to the appellant. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost forthwith.