Haryana

Sonipat

430/2013

ANITA W/O SATISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO.,2. THE B.M. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INS. CO.,3. CHANDERJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY VASHISTA

16 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.430 of 2013

                                Instituted on:17.10.2013

                                Date of order:08.06.2015

 

Smt. Anita (now deceased) wife of late Satish Kumar through her LRs i) Sombir son, ii)Manisha minor daughter iii)Suman d/o late Smt Anita wife of late Satish, all residents of village Farmana, tehsil Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat minor Manisha through her next friend/real brother Sombir son of late Satish Kumar.

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.HDFC Standard Life Ins. Co. Ltd. 11^th Flr. Lodha Excelus, Appolo Mills Compound, NM Joshi Marg, Maha Laxmi Mumbai, service to be effected through Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Ins. Co. Ltd. near Civil Hospital, De3lhi road, Sonepat.

2.The Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Ins. Co. Ltd. Ist Flr, Lalbati Chowk, near Ludhiana Shawl Market, GT road, Panipat.

3.Chanderjeet Singh son of Mahender, r/o village Ridhao PO Farmana, distt. Sonepat.

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  Vijay Vashisht Adv. for complainant.

           Sh.  Joginder Kuhar, proxy counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2.

           Respondent no.3 ex-parte.                

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          First of all, this Forum would like to mention here that initially the present complaint was filed by Smt. Anita, who during the pendency of the present complaint has expired on 8.11.2013 and the application for bringing her LRs on record was filed on 20.2.2014 and the same was allowed vide order dated 2.9.2014. 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the respondent no.3 advised the husband of the complainant Anita (since deceased) to purchase a insurance policy and the policy HDFC Children Double Benefit Plan vide policy no.14203502 dated 8.2.2011 was purchased and premium of Rs.25000/- of first installment was paid to the respondent no.3 and Smt. Anita (since deceased) was made as nominee of her husband.  The premium was regularly paid by Satish Kumar till 9/2012 amounting to Rs.25000/- per installment.  Unfortunately Satish Kumar had died on 30.12.2012 due to natural death.  All the relevant papers were submitted with the respondents.   As per requirement of the respondents, a certificate issued by the doctor was also sent to the respondent. Lastly in the month of 6/2013, the complainant received a letter dated 19.3.2013 from the respondent no.1 in which it was mentioned that the husband of the complainant had a fracture C6 quadriplegia prior to the issuance of the said policy. So, they showed their inability to accept the claim of the policy.  The complainant has alleged the repudiation of the claim to be wrong and illegal. So, the present complaint has been filed.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared and filed their joint written statement, whereas respondent no.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 8.7.2014.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement have submitted that the deceased at the time of making the proposal had misrepresented about his health i.e. he was suffering from Fracture C6 Quadriplegia. The said policy was issued, but that amounts to suppression of true and material facts.  The deceased concealed the material facts of his suffering from chronic pre-existing disease at the time of issuance of the policy.  The respondent no.1 had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of suppression of material facts by the life assured. The respondent no.1 vide letter dated 19.3.2013 repudiated the claim under the policy contract.  So, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2. Further the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents no.1 and 2 have wrongly and illegally repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 have submitted that the claim was rightly repudiated because the deceased life assured had concealed the true and material facts regarding his state of health i.e. he was suffering from Fracture C6 Quadriplegia. The said policy was issued, but that amounts to suppression of true and material facts.  The deceased concealed the material facts of his suffering from chronic pre-existing disease at the time of issuance of the policy.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 have placed on record the document OP-5 regarding Vertebral bodies show normal height.  But the bare perusal of this document itself shows that the injury pertains to July, 2008.  The respondents no.1 and 2 have failed to place on record any document that at the time of insurance, the deceased life assured was suffering any injuries.  So, it cannot be presumed that after a gap of approximately 2½  years, the deceased life assured was still suffering the same disease.  So, in our view, the respondents no.1 and 2 have wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim.  Thus, we direct the respondents to pay Rs.932000/- to the complainants.  The respondents no.1 and 2 are directed to deposit 33% amount out of Rs.932000/- in the name of minor  Manisha in the shape of FDR in any Nationalized Bank till she attains her majority.  The remaining 67% amount of Rs.932000/- is directed to the paid to  Sombir son  and  Suman daughter of late Satish Kumar. 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:08.06.2015