Punjab

Bhatinda

CC/09/140

Chander Kanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Avival Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Jagkaran Singh,Adv.

17 Sep 2009

ORDER


District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (Punjab)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Govt. House No. 16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence, Bathinda-151 001
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/140

Chander Kanta
Rajinder Kumar
Sonu Kumar Minor
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Avival Life Insurance
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) CC.No.140 of 26-6-2009 Decided on: 17-9-2009 1. Chander Kanta D/o Chhinderpal W/o Rajinder Kumar now wife of Vinay Kumar Goyal, resident of Haji Rattan, Bathinda. 2. Sonu Kumar minor S/o Chhinderpal W/o Rajinder Kumar, through Rajinder Kumar, being real father and next friend, resident of Balraj Nagar, Bathinda. 3. Rajinder Kumar Sh. Shivji Ram, resident of Balraj Nagar, Bathinda. …….Complainants. Versus AVIVA Life Insurance, Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF, Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon, through its M.D./C.E.O. ……..Opposite party. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Present:- For the complainants : Sh. Jagkaran Singh, Advocate. For the opposite party : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate. QUORUM Sh. George, President. Sh. Amrajeet Paul, Member. ORDER GEORGE, PRESIDENT:- 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainants being legal heirs of deceased Chhinderpal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against the opposite party that deceased Chhinderpal mother of complainants 1&2 and wife of complainant No.3 approached through Mrs. Ekta Garg, Advisor-cum-agent of opposite party to get insurance in the month of December 2007 and on the advise of Mrs. Ekta Garg, deceased got herself insured for Rs. 1,35,000/- against a premium of Rs.15,000/- p.a. and policy No. WLG 1793674 was allotted to her and in that policy, complainant No.2 was nominated by the deceased as her nominee; at the time of taking insurance policy, deceased disclosed the fact that she was a patient of cancer in the year 2003 to Ekta Garg, agent of opposite party but Ekta Garg told the deceased that pre existing disease has no bar from getting herself insured; unfortunately, decease died on 5-4-2009 and complainant No.2 submitted the claim to the opposite party on the basis of said policy being nominee of deceased but the opposite party declined the claim on the ground of non disclosure of facts of her ailment at the time of policy vide letter dt. 3-6-2009. Complainant further pleaded that deceased policy holder had fully disclosed about her decease and has not suppressed any material fact. She remained ill in the year 2003 and at the time of taking the policy, she was healthy feeling well after the treatment got from Achyaraya Tulsi Regional Cancer Treatment and Research Institute in the year 2003 and as such if there is any fault, it lies with the agent of opposite party and not either with the disease or with the complainant. Complainant has prayed for following relief:- i. Pay insured sum alongwith interest @24% P.A. from the date of due till its actual realization. ii. Pay compensation an amount of Rs.50,000/-on account of mental tension and harassment. 2. Opposite party despite, due to service of notice did not appear to contest the allegations and therefore, proceeded against as exparte. Complainant in order to prove their contentions brought in evidence and affidavit of Mrs. Chander Kanta dt 20-8-2009 Ex.C-1; copy of acknowledgement receipt Ex.C-2; copy of first premium receipt Ex.C-3; copy of death certificate of deceased Chhinderpal Ex.C-4 and letter of repudiation of claim of opposite party dt.3-6-2009 Ex.C-5. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully. 4. It appears from the averment made by the complainant is that deceased was suffering from cancer in the year 2003 and got treatment of her ailment from Achyaraya Tulsi Regional Cancer Treatment and Research Institute; this fact was brought to the notice of Ekta Garg, advisor-cum-agent of opposite party at the time, the proposal form insurance was moved. It is further pleaded that deceased after getting treatment in the year 2003 from Achyaraya Tulsi Regional Cancer Treatment and Research Institute, became healthy and at the time, when she got a insurance policy, she was feeling well. The complainant has not brought on the record, the treatment record of the deceased nor complainants have pleaded cause of death of deceased who died on 5-4-2009. Death certificate of the diseased Ex.C-2 has been placed on the record, even this certificate does not disclose the actual cause of death of disease. Death certificate Ex.C-4 bears a note which reveals as under:- “This death certificate has been issued under clause 12 of the Birth & Death Registration Act, 1969. The cause of death which is mentioned in the register of death, is not written in this certificate.” As to why the cause of death which is mentioned in the register of death, is not written in certificate, remained unexplained by the complainant. 5. The complainant has not given the cause of death of the deceased in the complaint nor the cause of death is mentioned in the death certificate. This shows that complainants have suppressed the cause of death of the diseased from this Forum which is material fact to finally conclude the nexuses between the ailment of the deceased and her death. It has been held by on National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case tital V.P.Kapoor and others Versus Raj Chopra and others 1999(1)CLT, 436 “Suppression of facts-Held that a party which suppresses facts from the Court does not deserve to get any relief.” In view of factual as well as legal position referred to our, since the complainant has suppressed material fact from this Forum i.e. the cause of death of the decease; the complainants are not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. 6. The parties are left to be bear their own costs. 7. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be indexed and consigned. Pronounced (GEORGE) 17-9-2009 PRESIDENT (AMARJEET PAUL) MEMBER