Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/56/2017

Mahaveer Sharma s/o Lat. Ramkarna Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Hement Tank

27 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 56/2017

 

Mahaveer Sharma s/o late Sh.Ramkaran Sharma r/o Kothari Mohalla Jaliya 2^nd Tehsil Vijaynagar, Distt. Ajmer Rajasthan

Vs.

Exide Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Regional Office D 24, C-Scheme, Prithviraj Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 27.9.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr. Hemant Tak counsel for the complainant

Mr.Rishabh Khandelwal counsel for the non-applicants

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This original complaint is filed on 22.5.2017 with the contention that father of the complainant Ramkaran Sharma purchased a policy of Exide Life My Term Insurance on 9.6.2014. The insurance amount was Rs. 25 lakhs. On 19.8.2015 insured died, claim was repudiated on the ground that the insured has suppressed the previous insurance policies and so also the pre-existing disease. Hence, complaint has been submitted.

 

The non-applicant could not file the reply in time hence, right to file reply was closed. The complainant entered into evidence. The non-applicant has submitted only three policies alongwith the application.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the insured has purchased the policy Ex. 1 and premium was also paid in time. As per condition no. 5.2 of terms and conditions of the policy on furnishing incorrect information or withhelding any

 

3

 

material information the non-applicants were entitled for forfeiture of the policy. Proposal form Ex. 6 clearly shows that only one policy of Aviva is being disclosed whereas a specific question has been asked from the insured that whether you have concurrently of simultaneously applied for any life, health insurance cover with us or any other life, health insurance company which is still under consideration. The non-applicant has submitted three policies of the deceased Ex. A -4 to A-6 with the Life Insurance Corporation which were in force at the time of purchase of this policy. The complainant has not denied these policies. Hence, Ex. A-4 to A-6 clearly shows that material fact regarding earlier insurance cover is suppressed by the insured.

 

The non-applicant has rightly relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Complaint Case No. 28/2015 Mohd.Yaseen Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co., judgment passed by Punjab State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 25/2016 Budhwanti Vs. DHFL Pramercia Life Insurance and judgment passed by Chhatisgarh State Commission in Appeal No. 68/2011 Hemant Kumar Vs.

 

4

 

Sr.Divisional Manager, LIC of India. Even the complainant has relied upon 1962 AIR 814 Mithoolal Nayak Vs. LIC of India where the apex court has held that deliberate fraudulent suppression of fact vitiated the policies which is the case here. Hence, in view of the fact that the complainant has not disclosed the fact of having earlier policies the claim has rightly been dismissed.

 

The contention of the complainant is that as per policy description this policy was non-participating hence, it was not necessary to disclose earlier policies but this contention has no force. Condition No.2 of the policy Ex. 5 relates to non-participating in profits of the company whereas a specific question regarding previous policies was asked in proposal form which was not answered incorrectly and the claim is liable to the dismissed.

 

The other reason for dismissal of the claim was that the insured was suffering from pre-existing disease but to support this contention no evidence has been submitted. The contention of the non-applicant is that insured has taken leave on medical

 

5

 

ground but no such documentary evidence has been submitted.

 

In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

 

Member President

 

 

nm