This appeal is Preferred against the Final order dated 16.03.2021 delivered by Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur, in CC No. 16 of 2019. The fact of the case in nut shell is that one Asraful Haque, a man of Uttar Dinajpur registered a Consumer complaint against LI.C. I Raiganj branch and Divisional Manager of LI.C. I to the effect that the Golapjam Khatun, the mother of the complainant purchased one Life insurance policy during her life time from the O. Ps on payment of premium and the policy Number is 456951385. The O.P collected all information from the insured person and after being satisfied they issued policies in favour of Golapjam Khatun. She paid premium of Rs.5752/- and after receipt of the same the O. Ps issued the said policy amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- in her name. During the life time of her she paid premium regularly, but due to financial crises she was unable to pay the premium and subsequently she renewed the policy by paying all outstanding premium to the O.P concern in the year 2016. Suddenly she died due to cardiac respiratory failure on 25/05/2017 when the said policy was in force. After her death the complainant being a nominee and legal heirs of her claimed the insured amount of the said policy by filing all necessary documents before the O.Ps. After received of all documents as well as claim form, the O.P issued a letter dated. 11/09/2018 repudiated the claim pointing out that "afore said policy has not completed 3 years from the date of revival which was only 11 months 16 days from revival to date of death (25/05/2017) of the life assured and they have examined the claim keeping in view of provisions of Section 45 of Insurance Act, 1938. They also informed the claimant that in the Agent's confidential report (Form No: -380) proposal for assurance signed by him on 30/10/2013 in the question No: -1: -B where he answered that he was not a relative of that policy holder which was totally false statement because the life assured was his mother and as an agent of LICI he should have known that being the son of the policy holder cannot be a party of the Agent and this was done intentionally to defraud Corporation. The complainant on several times requested the O. P for payment of the sum assured, but the O. Ps whimsically repudiated the claim by adducing a minor mistake of information which cannot affect the claim. The complainant suffers irreparable loss and injury due to negligent and whimsical act of the O.Ps.

Upon this background the complainant prayed that the O. Ps be directed to pay the assured amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of death of insured and to give direction the O. Ps to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/-.

The O.P/ LIC of India has contested the case by filing W.V denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form and that the instant complaint is. made with "Suppressio- Veri Suggestio-Falsi". But the O.P admitted the fact that Gulabjam Khatun the mother of the complainant purchased the said insurance policy from Raiganj Branch and the code number is 3662458. Though he registered himself as the nominee in the said policy, the purpose of the insurance contract may be termed as commercial. Therefore, according to Section 2(1) (d) of C P Act, 1986 the complainant cannot be a consumer and the case is liable to be dismissed. On perusal and detailed scrutiny, it was found that the agent himself was the nominee who has denied being the relative of the deceased while he submitted the form of proposal and Moral Hazard Report in form no: -3251. The principal intention in this case is seen to be an attempt to defraud the corporation with misleading answer. It is also a fact that in the revival paper, the declaration dated 09/06/2016 of good health was also witnessed by the said agent (complainant) and the policy holder had another policy bearing no: -456918945 at Raiganj Branch for a sum assured of Rs.500000/- on 28/11/2011.This fact was intentionally suppressed in the proposal by declaring that the proposal for policy no: 459951385 was her first insurance. But she disclosed the fact that the under writing would have been decided differently before issuing the policy. It is further stated that the complainant being a regular agent of LIC must have known the fact that the MHR which is a part and parcel of contract of insurance cannot be signed by an agent if he /she is a relative of the proposed of the Life Insurance Policy and the complainant admitted it in the complaint by saying a "Minor Mistake" on his part. After query some other astonishing facts came to light. which amply proves that the complainant had an ulterior motive to make money out of his ailing mother's life and he acted as visiting agent of LIC Chanchal Branch and affected an insurance on 26/05/2016 for a sum assured of Rs.2000000/- on his mother's life (Policy No 458150494 status report enclosed) again in Raiganj Branch Office Policy No: -998981311 on 28/10/2016 for a sum assured of Rs.900000/-. His malafide intention of defrauding the corporation is amply proved with these facts that he over insured his mother with full knowledge of the technicality of insurance and his mother's ill health and therefore, he changed the branches and time frame very frequently they’re by avoiding strict medical and other underwriting barriers. Agents are considered to be the first line underwriter. In this case the agent cum complainant has intentionally misled the corporation by giving wrong information with unclean mind for making quick money out of insurance contract. It is further stated that the LIC has settled the death claim of Golapjam Bibi against policy No: -456918945 DOC 28/11/2011 for Rs.500000/- which is duly payable as per rule of guidelines of the LIC. The allegation of deficiency in service does not hold good. The complainant is trying to. make intention of defrauding the company by taking shelter of the learned forum and mis utilizing the provisions of the CP Act.

Upon this background the O. Ps prays for dismissal of the case with a prayer to impose penalty U/S 27 of CP Act upon the complainant.

Ld. Forum after conducting the hearing in due process of LAW has adjudicated the dispute and delivered Final verdict in favour of complainant. Being aggrieved with that order this appeal follows on the ground that the order under appeal was full of error in law and Fact and liable to be set aside.

The appeal was registered and admitted in due Process and notice of appeal was sent to the complainant/ respondent and interim order of stay was issued by this bench in order to stay the execution process of the Final order.

The respondent after notice of the case recorded his presence before this bench through Ld. Advocate.  But for this last couple of Months the respondent did not take any Steps. Several opportunities were provided to him to conduct the hearing. But he did not opt the opportunity of hearing. The appellant conducted the hearing through Ld. Advocate Mr. R. Sarkar who also Submits the WNA and judicial decision.

                                                     Decision With Reason,

Admitted Position is that the complainant Asraful Haque is the son or deceased/ Insured Goalpjam Biwi it is also admitted that in the proposal form of such Policy he has acted as an LIC agent as well as nominee of his mother. It is also admitted that the policy in question was lapsed for not Paying the annual Premium in time and it was survived after Paying all due Premiums and Penalties and the insured died within 3 years of such Survival of the Policy

Ld. Adv of the appellant at the time of his argument mentioned that,

That the Insurance Contract in between the parties to the Insurance is purely rest upon "utmost good faith" and suppression of material facts directly hits the provision under Section- 45 of the Insurance

Act, 1938. In the instant case, the Respondent has purposely suppressed the fact that deceased insured is mother of the Respondent/Complainant i.e., the agent of the Insurance Company. Suppressing the said relationship of mother and son, the Respondent/Complainant has illegally prepared Agents Confidential Report/Moral Hazard Report, wherein the Respondent/Complainant has suppressed that he has no relation with the insured, rather he has admitted in the complaint that he is a son of the insured and the fact of suppressing/concealing is also clear from the "Annexure B" Page No. 18 and "Annexure - E" Page No.-28.

 That the Respondent/Complainant being the agent of the L.I.C., knows the each and every rules and norms of the L.I.C., but concealing/suppressing the relationship of mother and son, the Respondent has prepared the Moral Hazard Report with some false information’s stating that he knows the insured, since last 1 year and thereby completely misleading and misguiding the L.I.C., the Respondent/Complainant has fraudulently obtained the Policy, for his illegal and malafide gain, with an ill intention to grab the public money by defrauding the Corporation/L.I.C.

 That the Respondent/Complainant had purchased the instant policy by completely suppressing that priorly he had purchased another L.I.C. Policy being No.- 456918945 at Raiganj Branch, on 28.11.2011, for a sum assured of Rs. 5,00,000/-, at the time of filling up the proposal form of the instant policy, by falsely stating that it is the first Insurance Policy.

 That from the "Annexure- F" Page No.- 30 of the instant Appeal declared date of birth of the policy holder is 05.06.1973 and from the "Annexure- G" Page No.- 31, it is proved that date of birth of the son of the insured i.e. the Respondent/Complainant is 13.08.1995, so as per record the age difference in between the insured mother and nominee/son i.e. the Respondent/Complainant is only 11 years 10 months, which is quite impossible and not at all sustainable and believable in any circumstances whatsoever.

 That by selling the instant policy, the Respondent/Complainant, being the agent, has earned commission and thereby the instant policy does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended up to date.

 That from the admission of the Para Nos. 12 and 13 i.e., "Annexure- H" Page No. 18 clearly indicates that the Respondent/Complainant has undoubtedly admitted regarding his fault and it is settled principle of law that when a person standing on wrong-footing, then he cannot seek any relief whatsoever from any Court of Law.

In support of the Case the Appellant is relying on the following Judgements of Supreme Court:-

(i) Reported in C.P.J., Volume- 1, 2009, Page No.- 6, (S.C).

                    DEOKAR EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

                                                                        .......Appellant

                                      Vs.

      NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

                                                              .........Respondent

(ii) Reported in C.P.J., Volume- IV, 2009, Page No.- 8, (S.C).

                           SATWANT KAUR SANDHU

                                                             ........Appellant

                                           VS.

                  NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

                                                            ........Respondent

(iii) Copy of Judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.- 4261 of 2019, passed by Honorable Apex Court, in the case of:

                       RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR.

                                                                           ......Appellants

                                                     VS.

                            REKHABEN NARESHBHAI RATHOD.

                                                                        ……. Respondent

After Perusal of all material documents it has established beyond any doubt that complainant is this case is the direct beneficiary to the said insurance Policy as nominee of the insured. In life insurance, the ultimate beneficiary certainly is the nominee. Here the act and conduct of such nominee appears to the mischievous and intended to be benefitted in the said Policy by suppressing the material Facts. Such Policy was obtained concealing some important Facts which has palpably violated the Provisions of section 45 of Insurance Act 1938.

The complainant was himself guilty in suppressing the material facts and the persons who himself made the complaint with "Suppressio very and suggestio falsi" cannot get any Protection under consumer Protection Act. The Judicial decisions of Hon’ble higher Forum also suggested the said view. It is also revealed that the Complainant as son and heir of this deceased insured has purchased numerous policies one by one while in each case mentioned only one policy of life and some of the said policies has already settled when the fact of suppression was not disclosed or exposed. Life insurance Scheme taken by govt. as beneficial measures for its subjects and it cannot be misused. 

So, the observation or Ld. forum based on misconception of fact and law, is liable to be interfered and set aside as the Complainant has not come with clean hands and in order to get equitable relief one should come with clean hands and Ld. Forum has over looked this episode. 

 thus, the appeal succeeds.

                                      Hence it is ordered,

That the appeal be and the same is here by allowed on contest without cost.

The Final Order delivered DCDRF Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj, dated 16.03.2021 in CC No. 16 of 2019 is here by said aside.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF Uttar Dinajpur, Raiganj.