Top News

The Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has dismissed a plea filed by a minor, represented by her maternal grandfather, against the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The minor had claimed that LIC failed to inform her about two life insurance policies under the Komal Jeevan scheme being surrendered by her father, her natural guardian, without her knowledge.
The minor argued that since she was the life assured in the policies, worth ₹9 lakh and ₹5 lakh respectively, she should have been notified before they were terminated in 2014. The case alleged a deficiency in service on LIC’s part for withholding this information and sought compensation.
However, the commission rejected the plea, stating that the minor was not a party to the contract and was ineligible to claim any benefits from the policies. 
In its seven-page order, the commission noted, “The complainant was the life assured but not the policyholder. The policies were purchased by her father, who was the proposer and premium payer, making him the policyholder. The surrender of the policies in 2014 terminated the contract, and no privity of contract existed between the complainant and LIC. Thus, she is not entitled to any benefits of the policy.”
LIC, in its defence, clarified that as the policies were purchased by the complainant’s father and surrendered by him, the surrender value was paid directly to him. The insurer argued that the complainant, being a minor at the time, did not have any rights to the policy benefits or ownership.
The commission concurred with LIC, emphasising that the complainant was merely the beneficiary and not the policyholder, the second point being that the father’s role as the proposer and natural guardian gave him the legal right to surrender the policies, and lastly that there was an absence of a direct contract between LIC and the minor, which thus absolved the company of any liability.
The commission further stated that the “life assured” designation does not confer ownership or entitlement to the benefits of the policy, particularly in cases where the policyholder and premium payer a different individuals.
The case, filed in 2022 by the minor from Ghatkopar, against her natural guardian about managing financial policies for herwithoutt her consent or knowledge, but the commission concluded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair practice by LIC.