Life Insurance - Gbic.co.in

suicide. Since the same was exclusion under the policy for considering Accident Benefit,the Insurers decision not to settle Accident Benefit was upheld.The complaint was dismissed.Chennai Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (CHN) / 21.04.2304 / 2004 - 05Shri G. RamakrishnanVs.Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward Dated 3.11.2004Shri G. Ramakrishnan took a Children’s Moneyback policy on the life of his minor childMaster Manikandan on 31.1.1998. The risk under the policy was to commence with effectfrom 28.1.2004. The minor life assured died on 3.10.2003 in a road accident. LIC refusedto settle the full sum assured since the risk under the policy did not commence. LIChowever offered to return the premiums paid under the policy in terms of policy conditions .The complainant not satisfied with the decision of LIC approached this Fourm forsettlement of full sum assured.Parties to the dispute were heard. The complainant contended that he was not aware oftechnical intricacies, that the exact date of commencement of risk was not informed to himby the Agent, that other insurers provided risk cover even from age 0 to 4 and that hedeserved sympathetic consideration as he has lost his dear son. The records of the casewere perused. The special type of plan provided risk cover even during the minority of thechild from the policy anniversary following completion of 7 years of age of the child and incase of death before commencement of risk a return of the entire premium paid. The dateof birth of the child was 5.2.1996 and he completed age 7 on 5.2.2003. Since the policycommenced on 28.1.1998, the risk under the policy commenced with effect from 28.1.2004,which was the immediate policy anniversary following completion of age 7 on 5.2.2003.However the child died on 3.10.2003, before commencement of risk on 28.1.2004. Hencethe decision of the Insurer to refund the premiums paid was held to be inconformity withthe policy conditions. AS for the contention of the complainant that other Insurance offeredpolicies on which risk commenced even before age 4, each Insurer offered policies withdifferent condition and the specific terms stated under the policy are applicable withdifferent condition and the specific terms stated under the policy are applicable. Hisanother contention that Agent filled up the proposal form was not acceptable since it is wellsettled in law that Agent acted as the Agent of the Insured while filling up the proposalfrom.LIC’s decision to refund the premiums paid under the policy was upheld. The complaint forpayment of full sum assured was dismissed.Chennai Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (CHN) / 21.08.2292 / 2004 - 05Smt. S. ChandraVs.Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward Dated 3.11.2004Late A. Selvarasu took a LIC policy for Rs. 34,000/- as per his proposal dated 31.3.1997.He nominated his wife Smt. S. Chandra thereunder. The policy lapsed due to default ofpremium and was revived on 20.10.2001 on the strength of a declaration of good health.The assured died on 23.12.2001 within a few months of revival and the cause of deathaccording to the claimant was Heart Attack. LIC set aside the revival and repudiated theclaim for suppression of material information on health at the time of revival. That decisionwas upheld by the Claims Review Committee leading to the present complaint.