Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No.1627 of  2008

1- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch

    Office no.1, Raidopur, City and District,

    Azamgarh through Manager (Legal), Divisional

    Office, Jeevan Prakash, 30, Hazratganj,

    Lucknow.

2- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional

    Office, Jubli Complex, Jubli Road, Gorakhpur

    through Manager (Legal), Divisional Office,

    Jeevan Prakash, 30, Hazratganj, Lucknow.   ….Appellants.                                                                         

                                       Versus

Chote Lal Pathak, adult s/o Sri Pashupati Pathak,

R/o Post Pathkauli, Pargana, Nizamabad, Tehsil,

Sadar, District, Azamgarh.                               …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.

Sri Alok Ranjan, Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

Date 2.7.2024

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.7.2008 passed by Ld. District Forum, Azamgarh in Complaint case no.92 of 2005, Chote Lal Pathak vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & anr.

The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises. After getting the information of the judgment on 23.7.2008, certified copy has been received. The wife of the respondent is an educated woman and teacher of the primary school who took the following 7 insurance polices.

Sl.     Policy No.      Amount         Table/Term        Date

1-   290560902       25,000.00         106-15            28.3.1994

2-   290957964       25,000.00         106-15            28.12.1996

3-   291298363       25,000.00         14-10              28.11.1998

4-   291302864       25,000.00         14-10              27.2.1999

5-   291302866       75,000.00         14-10              27.2.1999

6-   291500225       25,000.00         14-7                21.3.2000

7-   291500560       25,000.00         14-7                28.3.2000

          Out of these polices, the policies no.290560902,   290957964, 291298363, 291302864 and 291500225 have been paid. In the deceased insured’s policy no. 291302866 in the proposal form, policies no. 291298363 and 291302864 has not been mentioned in column 9. The claim regarding policy no. 291500560 has been rejected due to non-disclosure of other policies. The policy no.291302866 has been revived on 20.11.2001. The insurance company has been intimated regarding the death of Smt. Bachchi Devi, the insured on 13.7.2002. Except policies no. 291500560 and 291302866 the claim regarding all other 5 polices have been accepted while the policies no. 291500560 and 291302866 has been rejected. When the insurance company dismissed the claim of the above 2 polices, a complaint has been filed before the ld. District Forum who passed the following order.

          “परिवादिनी का प्रस्‍तुत परिवाद, विपक्षीगण भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम शाखा कार्यालय सं01 रैदोपुर जिला आजमगढ व अन्‍य के विरूद् स्‍वीकार किया जाता है कि वे पालिसी संख्‍या- 291500560 बीमाधन 25,000/- रूपया तथा पालिसी संख्‍या- 291302866 बीमाधन 75,000/- रूपया तथा इन पालिसियों पर देय बोनस व अन्‍य देय धनराशि का भुगतान एक माह के अन्‍दर परिवादी छोटे लाल पाठक को कर देवें।

परिवादी विपक्षीगण से सम्‍पूर्ण देय धनराशि पर परिवाद संस्थित करने की तिथि दि011.11.2005 अन्तिम भुगतान तक 9% वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज भी पाने का हकदार होगा।

खर्चा मुकदमा उभयपक्ष अपना-अपना स्‍वंय वहन करेंगे।”

The impugned judgment and order has been passed without considering the evidence of the appellants. In the above policies, references of previous policies have not been given. The ld. District Forum did not consider all these facts and passed the impugned judgment which is liable to be set aside. Hence it is most humbly prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be set aside.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Alok Ranjan.  None appeared for the respondent. We have perused the pleadings, evidences and documents on record.

In this case, it is clear that out of 7 polices, the claim of 5 policies have already been paid while the claim regarding 2 polices has been rejected. All the policies are concerned with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, so the Life Insurance Corporation of India has all the datas regarding these 7 polices but he paid the claim of only 5 polices and dismissed the claim of 2 polices which is against the principles of natural justice. It can very well be presumed and has good reason to believe that the appellant has knowledge of all the 7 policies which were issued by him to the same person. The ground of dismissal is of no value. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum needs no interference by this Commission. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

         The appeal is dismissed.

If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission for satisfying the decree as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.      

      (Sudha Upadhyay)                     (Rajendra Singh)         

               Member                             Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

      (Sudha Upadhyay)                     (Rajendra Singh)         

               Member                             Presiding Member

Dated 2.7.2024

Jafri, PA I

Court  2