Before :- Uday Umesh Lalit and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 8140 of 2019 (@ out of SLP (C) No. 9251 of 2019). D/d. 18.10.2019.
Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellants
Versus
Minati Mohapatra - Respondents
For the Appellants :- Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Mr. Pankul Nagpal and Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Mr. Abhisth Kumar and Mr. Biswajit Swain, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the correctness of the final order dated 4.1.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.860 of 2018.
3. One Ranganath Mohapatra got issued two life insurance policies covering lives of his two sons; elder son - Udit Narayana Mohapatra was insured vide policy No. 0035172972, while younger son - Aditya Narayana Mohapatra was also insured vide policy No. 0035170775. Thus the lives that were insured were of the sons of the proposer- Ranganath Mohapatra. It appears that the premia of these two policies were paid for two years whereafter there were default in payment of further premia.
4. The proposer-Ranganath Mohapatra died on 2.8.2019. Thereafter, his widow - Minati Mohapatra- the respondent herein preferred a death claim. The claim having been repudiated, she filed Complaint Case No. 89/2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jeypore seeking following relief:
"Hence, it is prayed this Hon'ble Forum be pleased to direct the OPs to pay L 5,80,000/- ( L 3,00,000/- against Policy No. 0035172972 and L 2,80,000/- against Policy No. 0035170775) alongwith accrued interest, bonus and benefits if any and L 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and hardship to a destitute widow and L 10,000/- towards the cost of filing this complaint in the interest of justice."
5. The complaint case was allowed by the District Forum with following observations:
"9. Further Insurance Act and the Consumer Forums under CP Act are welfare legislation constituted by the statute. The insurance policy is being taken and its aim for helping the insured person at the time of need. In the above circumstance, we feel that it would be just and proper to direct the OPs to settle the death claim in favour of complainant and pay the maturity value in case of both the policies in the interest of justice. However, non-settlement of death claims under the above circumstances in a fair manner amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and for such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and also has come up with this case incurring some expenditure. Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of L 5000/- onwards compensation and costs in favour of the complaint will meet ends of justice."
6. The decision rendered by the District Forum was sought to be appealed against. However, the appeal was delayed by 79 days. The delay was not condoned and consequently, the appeal stood dismissed by the State Commission. The decision of the State Commission was affirmed by the National Commission vide order dated 4.1.2019 which is presently under appeal.
7. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the policies were covering the lives of the sons and Ranganath Mohapatra was only a proposer. Since the insurance was to cover the lives of the sons, the liability to pay any sum towards the policies in question, had never arisen and the consumer Fora were completely in error in granting the claim.
8. The fact that the persons whose lives were ensured are very much alive is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. He however, submitted that amounts in the sum of L 1,39,678/- were paid by the proposer while he was alive and thereafter there had been default in making payment towards further premia and as such suitable directions be issued.
9. Even though, we find that the Consumer Fora were completely in error in granting the relief to the respondent, considering the facts and circumstances on record, we direct the appellant to refund to the respondent the deposited amount of L 1,39,678/- along-with interest at the rate of L 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The payment shall be made to the respondent within four weeks from today.
10. The orders passed by the Consumer Fora are modified accordingly and this appeal stands allowed with aforesaid observation.
