PDA

View Full Version : Case Study - 3



PolicyWala
24-03-2009, 07:41 AM
Premium for personal accident policy remitted – received and encashed by insurer – liable to pay claim.

MANJIT RANI VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. & ANR.

Background of the facts giving rise to the present case are that the insured/deceased was serving and posted as an assistant sub-inspector (ASI) at Amritsar under the superintendent of police, Amritsar. It was alleged by the legal heir of the deceased/insured that all the officials on the active roll of the department were to be covered under – Personal Accident Claim Policy of the above insurer and the S.P. Amritsar, was responsible for deduction of the insurance premium from the salary of the police personnel on the active roll/strength of each district and the premium was to be paid in lump sum covering the risk for the whole year. The S.P. was also responsible for remittance of this premium and for renewals of the policy as and when it fell due. The deceased ASI expired when the bus he was traveling in met with an accident. The legal heir of the deceased approached the S.P. and nothing was paid to and her claim was also repudiated by the insurer. A complaint was filed before the district forum where the contention of the insurer was that the S.P. Amritsar never obtained the group insurance policy covering the deceased and hence the claim was repudiated. The complaint was dismissed by the district forum. In appeal before the state commission the appellate court observed that it was not disputed that S.P. Amritsar paid a premium of Rs.357764/- to the above insurer on behalf of the police personnel of the district by way of bank draft dt.25-9-92. The various witnesses deposed before the court that the above mentioned bank draft was encashed by the insurer and the fact that ASI/deceased was working in the effective strength of the police force of the district before he expired on 1-10-
92. It was also deposed by one of the witnesses that the death claim form of the deceased was also deposited with the insurer by the S.P. Amritsar vide letter dt.11-1-95. It was also stated that 15 death claims were filed with the insurer in 1995 out of which the claim of deceased ASI was only repudiated. Therefore the fact of the deceased being posted at Amritsar and a bank draft towards payment of the personnel accident policy of the officials being encashed by the insurance company stood proved. The ASI died on 1-10-92 i.e. after the encashment of the said premium amount by the insurers on 29-9-92. Thus the factum of insurance cover on the life of the deceased was proved and the S.P. had obtained the insurance policy on 25-9-92 in which the deceased and his colleagues stood insured and a lump sum premium was paid and duly received by the insurance company before the death of the ASI and thus the insurer was liable to pay the claim to complainant.

Held: Claim of complainant allowed, insurer liable.