BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 210/2009 Filed on 12/08/2009

Dated: 30..12..2010

Complainant:

C. Omana, w/o late Sreenivasan, TC No.10/1403, Sreenilayam, Kavalloor, Vattiyoorkavu – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. M.P. Sasidharan Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. Chief Manager, SBI Life Insurance, Khadi Tower, 4^th Floor, Near Kaloor Bus Stand, Cochin – 17.

2. Branch Manager, SBI Life Insurance Company, S.S Coil Road, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv.G.L. Mohana Chandran)

This O.P having been heard on 13..12..2010, the Forum on 30..12..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant's husband A. Sreenivasan took an insurance policy vide Policy No.06017537701 from the opposite parties, that he died on 26/5/2006 thereupon complainant lodged the death claim, which was repudiated by opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay the claim amount along with compensation and cost.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending inter alia that the claim was repudiated on 10/2/2007 whereas the complaint was filed on 20/8/2009, that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, that the Life Insurance contract is a contract of Utmost good faith wherein the proponent is duty bound to disclose the correct facts concerning his age, health, habits and other related matters which are within his knowledge at the time of making the proposal, failing which the Insurer has every right to repudiate the claim, that in this case the deceased Life Insured committed a breach of the principle of Utmost good faith by suppression of the material facts of his pre-existing illness of Type II Diabetes Mellitus at the time of proposal, that as per hospital treatment certificate issued by Dr. S.R.Chandra the deceased life assured was suffering from type II Diabetes Mellitus and is on treatment since 20 years, on the strength of which the claim was repudiated and the same was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 10/2/2007.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether the deceased Life Assured was suffering from Type II Diabetes Mellitus before taking policy?

3. Whether the said disease was in his knowledge?

4. Whether the repudiation of the claim is justifiable?

5. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

6. Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs?

Opposite parties insisted for hearing on the maintainability of the complaint primarily on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence the preliminary issue for consideration is: Whether the complaint is barred by limitation.

Admittedly, the deceased Srinivasan was a policy holder of the opposite parties vide policy No.06017537701 for sum assured of Rs.25,000/- and upon his death his wife, the complainant in this case lodged the death claim to opposite parties which was repudiated on 10/2/2007. Ext. P1 is the Renewal Premium Intimation dated 9, September 2006. Ext. P2 is the repudiation letter dated 10/2/2007. The contents of the Ext. P2 may be reproduced:

“ Late Srinivasan A was covered under the Sudarshan Plan B on 22/02/2006 and was insured for a Sum Assured of Rs.25,000/-.

In the proposal Form dated 26/12/2005, the questions under Section 8

a) Part (xxi) which deals with history of Diabetes of the Life Assured has been answered as 'NO'

However as per the reports available it has come to our notice that Late Srinivasan A was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type II and took treatment before commencement of the policy.

It is clear from the above that the Life Assured has concealed material facts while proposing insurance cover. Had material facts disclosed in the proposal form dated 26/12/2005 SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd would not have issued the above policy on the existing terms. Hence the claim is repudiated”.

Opposite parties have produced 5 documents. Ext. D1 is the Proposal Form. Ext. D2 is the copy of the Sudarshan Policy. Ext. D3 is the copy of the certificate of Hospital treatment. Ext. D4 is the copy of the death claim. Ext. D5 is the copy of the repudiation letter. Before getting into the details of the merits of the case in hand, the preliminary issue under consideration is whether the complaint is barred by limitation. It is to be noted that the claim was repudiated on 10/2/2007. This complaint was filed on 12/8/2009, cause of action arose after repudiation of claim on 10/02/2007 and the complaint ought to have been filed within a period of two years from 10/02/2007, that is on or before 9/2/2009. However it came to be filed only 12/8/2009. It is a clear case of bar of limitation. The complainant did not file any application under Section 24 A. Opposite party has produced certificate of hospital treatment (Ext. D3) issued by Head of the Department Neurology, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram showing that the deceased was suffering from Type II Diabetes Mellitus since 20 years, that is before signing the declaration of good health and before entering into contract of Insurance. As to the truth of Ext. P3 the complainant had not challenged thereby it appears that the repudiation of the death claim by opposite parties is just and legal. Obviously the complaint was barred by the provisions of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides that the Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. It is significant to note that the law of limitation has a sanctity behind it and it is to the effect that all issues particularly, the petty one must come to an end after a reasonable period. There is another aspect of the matter and it is that the law does not help those who slumber upon their rights for long. A person of ordinary prudence is expected to be vigilant of his rights and must move to stake his or her claim within a reasonable period. If one foregets to assert his rights within a reasonable period particularly when it is stipulated he loses his claim after the period comes to an end. Similar seems to be the fate of the case in hand wherein complainant did not rise to any occasion to file complaint within time stipulated. It appears that her right has gone into oblivion perhaps on account of lapse of time. As said above the law would come to rescue of only those who are vigilant, prudent and alert in staking claims their rights.

In view of the above, we find the complaint is time barred which deserves to be dismissed. We need not discuss other points under consideration since complaint itself is barred by limitation.

In the result, complaint is dismissed as time barred.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of December, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A,

MEMBER.

S.K. SREELA,

MEMBER .

ad.

C.C.No.210/2009

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : C. Omana

2. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Renewal Premium Intimation dated 9/9/2006.

P2 : The repudiation letter dated 10/2/2007.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : The Proposal Form

D2 : Copy of the Sudarshan Policy

D3 : Copy of the Certificate of Hospital treatment

D4 : " Death Claim

D5 : " repudiation letter

PRESIDENT