APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Varshal M. Pancholi, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON : 7th FEBRUARY 2014

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 20.06.2013, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 886/2011, ajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited versus M/s. Radhika Fancy Stores,vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 21.07.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar in consumer complaint no. 51/2011, partly allowing the said complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant M/s Radhika Fancy Stores is carrying out the business of dealing in gift articles and handicrafts at Godhavi (Harshad). The petitioner had taken insurance cover from the National Insurance Company against theft & natural calamities, for the period 24.05.2008 to 23.05.2009 and then from 16.06.2009 to 15.06.2010. As the term of the said Insurance Policy was about to expire, the petitioner took another insurance policy from M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, present OP/respondent. It has been stated by the petitioner/complainant that a representative of the OP, Rajeshbhai had approached them and requested to take insurance policy from their Company. The petitioner informed him that he had obtained insurance policy from the National Insurance Company which was valid till 15.06.2010. The petitioner gave his insurance policy to the agent and requested him that the new policy should be taken in such a way that it should commence from the date of completion of the earlier policy. The petitioner claims that he is illiterate and hence the proposal form etc. was filled by the agent, a premium of `3,120/- was given to the agent and insurance for `10.67 lakh was taken. The said insurance policy was issued to take effect from 10.06.2010. The complainant informed the agent on phone that there was error in the date and the policy should commence from 16.06.2010. Further, due to heavy rain-fall on 10.08.2010, there was water around their shop up to 7 to 8 ft., resulting in damage to the stocks. A surveyor was appointed to assess the damage. The said surveyor calculated the damage to goods as `4,83,991/- and to furniture as `1,43,550/-. However, the OP repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that earlier insurance had been taken from the National Insurance Company and claims had also been filed with that Company. 3. The stand taken by the OP/respondent says that their agent never contacted the petitioner and did not request him to take the insurance policy in question. They have taken the plea that the claim had been solely repudiated on the ground that the petitioner suppressed material information from them regarding the factum of insurance already taken and insurance claims previously filed. 4. The petitioner submitted the consumer complainant in question before the District Forum and the said Forum partially allowed the same and directed the OPs to pay an amount of `3,97,692/- with interest @7.5% per annum from 14.11.2010 till the date of payment. A sum of `2500/- was also ordered to be paid as compensation for mental harassment and cost of complaint. However, an appeal filed against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission was allowed vide impugned order and the order of the District Forum was set aside, saying that the petitioner had received the claim time and again from the National Insurance Company, but did not make any mention about the same in the proposal form submitted by them to the OP/respondent. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 5. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was an illiterate fellow. He had taken the present insurance policy at the instance of the agent of the OP and the proposal form etc. was also filled by that agent. He admitted that in the proposal form, the details about the existing insurance and the claims made during the last 36 months had not been given, rather it had been stated that no such insurance had been taken and no claims had been made. The learned counsel admitted that the petitioner had previously taken two claims from the National Insurance Company. 6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. A perusal of the reply to the complaint filed before the District Forum by the OP/respondent indicates that the OP/respondent have taken the main plea that the petitioner deliberately suppressed material facts about the existing insurance policy with other insurer and about the previous claims made by them. The respondents had accepted the proposal form on bonafide belief that the information given in the proposal form was correct. The OP / respondent stated that contract of insurance was a contract of berrima Fidesand hence, there must be complete good faith about the facts on the part of the assured. The assured was under solemn obligation to make full disclosure of material facts which could be relevant for taking a decision by the new insurer to issue fresh insurance policy. 7. A perusal of the copy of the proposal form on record shows that in column no. 12 and 13 of the said form, the petitioner has not given any information about the existing insurance and also stated that he had not filed any claim during the last 36 months. It is clear from these facts that the petitioner suppressed material information from the OP/respondent about taking insurance policy from the National Insurance Company and about taking two claims previously from the said Company. The State Commission have observed in the impugned order that the petitioner has received claims time and again, and he is in the habit of filing and receiving such claims. 8. In view of the above facts, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and there is no ground for any interference in the said order. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed at admission stage and the order of the State Commission is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.