Case Note & Summary
The respondent, Smt. B.M. Uma, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.60,000/- with interest against the Union of India and the Chief Post Master General, claiming the sum assured under a Postal Life Insurance policy taken by her deceased husband, Sri Siddaraju. The policy was issued on 7.7.1999 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- and was scheduled to mature on 14.11.2009. The insured died on 26.12.2001 due to a massive heart attack. The plaintiff contended that the policy was in force and that the defendants had wrongfully repudiated the claim. The defendants argued that the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of premiums before the death. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed. The High Court analyzed the evidence, noting that the plaintiff did not produce any premium payment receipts or other documents to prove that the policy was subsisting at the time of death. The policy bond itself indicated that the policy had lapsed. The court held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that the policy was in force, and she failed to discharge that burden. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Insurance Law - Lapsed Policy - Non-payment of Premium - Postal Life Insurance Rules - The plaintiff claimed recovery of Rs.60,000/- under a Postal Life Insurance policy taken by her deceased husband. The defendants contended that the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of premiums before the death. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the policy was in force at the time of death, as the premium receipts were not produced and the policy bond showed the policy had lapsed. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Insurance Claim - The burden lies on the claimant to prove that the policy was subsisting at the time of death. The plaintiff did not discharge this burden by failing to produce premium payment receipts or other evidence. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum assured under a Postal Life Insurance policy when the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of premiums before the death of the insured.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 9.7.2010 passed in O.S.No.4391/2005 by the 42nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Insurance law
- Lapsed policy
- Non-payment of premium
- Burden of proof
- Postal Life Insurance Rules
- Section 96 CPC
