The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari of the apex court in the case of Smt. Sulakshna Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. held that it may be true that respondent No. 2 might have remitted the premium with the insurance company belatedly. However, the same insured cannot be made to suffer.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that there was group insurance between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and the sum of Rs 4,000/- was deposited with respondent no. 2 towards the premium. The husband of the original complainant died. However, it appears that respondent No. 1 – the insurance company issued policies on the ground that respondent No. 2 credited the amount of premium. Therefore, respondent No. 1 – the insurance company refused to pay the amount and refused to settle the claim.
Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint before the district consumer dispute redressal forum. Further, the appeal was made before the state commission and the state commission dismissed the appeal. Moreover, the revision petition was filed before the national commission, and the national commission set aside the order of the district commission and the state commission, which has given rise to the present appeal at the instance of the original complainant.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble top court observed that it can be seen that respondent No. 2 herein was authorized to accept the premium for and on behalf of respondent No.1 – the insurance company. Thereafter, it was for respondent No. 2 to recover the amount of premium for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 – the insurance company and was required to remit the same to respondent No.1 – the insurance company, and the policy was required to be issued by the insurance company. It is the case on behalf of the complainant that the deceased husband paid the amount of premium of Rs.4,000/ with respondent No. 2 on 31.12.2006 and therefore the insurance cover would commence from the completion of the fifteen (15) days of payment of premium. It may be true that respondent No. 2 might have remitted the premium with the insurance company belatedly. However, the same insured cannot be made to suffer. Under the circumstances, the insured shall be entitled to the amount insured under the policies for which the amount of premium was already paid prior to the death of the insured. Thereafter, the decision of the National Commission was set aside and the order of the District Commission and State Commission was restored.
CASE NAME- Smt. Sulakshna Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6731 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
DATE- 23.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
