The facts as stated in the complaint petition and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the wife of the complainant Amrita Roy since deceased insured herself under policy No.458160559 dated 09/02/2015 to the life Insurance Corporation (hence forth would be said as L.I.C.I.) at Malda Branch-I who  took premium from her. Unfortunately she met an accident and died on 21/03/2015 due to severe burn injuries. Accordingly out of the death of policy holder her husband complainant of this case namely Subhojit Das, the nominee, is entitled to get Rs.5,00,000/- (five lakh) as per policy but after her death he being nominee did not get any money from the L.I.C. though filled up the “Form” along with required-documents. Despite all required-documents L.I.C. authority who are made opposite parties to this case (the required officers of the case) neither acknowledged any submissions or documents of him nor disbursed any claim amounting Rs.6,10,000/- (six lakh ten thousand). So finding no other alternative, complainant sent application to the R.T.I. on 02/07/2018 and L.I.C. as O.P. sent a vague reply to avoid the issue of disbursement of claim amount. Hence this case arose against the O.Ps on and from 02/07/2018 as a cause of action of this case. Complainant as husband of this policy-holder prays relief like death claim of Rs 6,10,000/-(six lakh ten thousand) and compensation for mental agony and harassment at the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakh). He is quite entitled to get it.

         On the other dogma, the O.P. L.I.C. as Divisional Manager & Branch Manager of Malda Branch-I, denied all material allegations interalia and averred that, Complainant suppressed all material facts or truth to mislead this Commission/Forum. Factually Amrita Roy the wife of the Complainant who by profession mobile-recharge-shopkeeper took three (3) policies from Malda branch, I & II such as policy No-457099420, policy No-458161350 and the Subject-Policy-No-458160559. The aforesaid subject-policy which date of commencement is on 09/02/2015, and the policy holder died on 21/03/2015, and the sum assured on this policy as Rs.3,05,000/-(Three Lakh five thousand). So the duration of the policy is only 1 month 12 days. It is evident that these policies as aforesaid were taken in high sum from two different branches within in a short span of life of the policy holder. Practically this Complainant filed the two cases on the policy No.458161350 and 458160559 as complainant-petition No.52/2019 and 53/2019 (this case) to escape/evade relation with one policy to another to mislead this commission/Forum. Complainant filed this instant case on some unfounded allegations which are not supported by any documentary evidence. His motive is nothing but to harass the O.P.-L.I.C.-department. So this Complaint-petition is worthy to be dismissed.

:: Decision with Reasons ::

Point to be decided:

           Whether Complainant is entitled to get any relief/award as prayed for any deficiency of service by the O.P.-L.I.C. or not?

          It is admitted position from the Filing Register of this court/commission that this Complainant factually filed three (3) cases against this O.P.-L.I.C.-department, under three (3) serial number i.e., 63/2019 for the policy No.457099420 which one already dismissed by this forum/Commission for want of the report of Judicial Magistrate which was not supplied by the Complainant to the L.I.C.-department (Though from the written argument of the O.Ps it is found that Rs.5,00,000/- (five Lakh) was already been paid to the Complainant on 05/01/2019 for the policy No.457099420). 

         Another Case No.52/2019 is still pending before this court bearing policy No.458161350.

        This very case is for policy No.458160559 herein sum assured as Rs.3,05,000/- (Three Lakh five thousand) bearing Case No.53/19. It admitted position L.I.C.-department repudiated the policy of this case.

       Now the question is whether this repudiation is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P./respondent or not?

         On careful perusal of the materials on the record, it is fact no original document of this policy was deposited by the Complainant as ordered by this court or even through evidence in record. From the front side of the photo copy of “ENDOWMENT-PLAN” it is found as endorsed at page No-I that “……..And it is hereby declared that this policy assurance shall be subject to the conditions & privileges printed on the back hereof and that the following schedule and every endorsement placed on the policy by the corporation shall be deemed part of policy.” Though this entire ENDWOMENT–PLAN was not deposited by complainant as his document.

              The Ld. Council of the O.P.-Department argued that this transaction with L.I.C.-Department as per “contract paper” is a “contract” itself, so when a contract paper is prepared and signed and acknowledge by both the parties, they are duty bound to obey all the parts of the contract. In the “proposal form” the insured-person had to give genuine information about him/her through contract paper under any policy number, but this “Form” of question-policy-papers as filled-up by the insured-Amrita Roy was not genuine one. She suppressed in column of information at para-9 of the L.I.C.-Policy-Form about her another policy like No.457099420 and 458161350. So she was mala-fide in suppression of other two (2) L.I.C. polices. Ld. O.P. council further drew attention to this commission in this respect on the judgment of apex court at civil Appeal No. 4261 of 2019 wherein it is observed “……..It is well settled that a contract of insurance is contract Uberrima-fides and there must be complete good faith on the part of assured. The assured is thus under a solemn obligation to make full disclosure of material facts which may be relevant for the insurer to take into account while deciding whether the proposal should be accepted or not. While making a disclosure of the relevant facts, the duty of the insured to state them correctly cannot be diluted”.

          So now we the commission, on scrutiny of proposal form as supplied by the L.I.C. council, find that in “column No.-9”, insured Amrita Roy really suppressed about her other policies and in column No.-14 of that proposal-form we find, it is clearly undertaken by the insured-Amrita Roy since deceased that, “I Smt. Amrita Roy hereby declare that the foregoing statements an answers have been given by me after fully understanding the questions and the same are true and complete in every particular an that I have not withheld any information and I do here by agree and declared that these statements and this declaration shall be the basis of the contract of assurance between me and L.I.C.I. and that if any untrue statement tie contained therein the said contract shall be absolutely null and void and all moneys which shall have being paid in respect thereof shall stand forfeited to the corporation”.  So as per declaration by the decreased –insured-Amrita Roy as mentioned at the last page of proposal form or contract paper that contract shall be absolutely null and void and all moneys which shall have been paid in respect of this contract shall stand forfeited to the corporation if any suppression. So when suppression of fact is shown by the O.P. council that this lady/insured  suppressed her other policies at column 9,  this very repudiation on the part of O.Ps is not at-all can be declared by the commission as any deficiency in service by the O.Ps. Consequently argument as placed by the council of L.I.C. is accepted by this commission.

             More over this commission is bound to observe, no substantial document with regard to the payment of any yearly premium or any receipt thereof has been documented by the complainant in which this commission can infer that this insured was a good payee of premium so long she was alive in yearly term which was scheduled to be given as per contract paper.

             Another point to be mentioned as observation by the commission that, this policy No.458160559 only lasted or lasting for 1 month 12 days and sum assured as Rs.3,05,000/-(three lakh five thousand ), but in complaint petition at Para No.-4 the husband of the insured as complainant demanded Rs.5,00,000/- (five lakh) for accidental death of his wife but in his prayer portion of the complaint he demanded Rs.6,10,000/-(six lakh ten thousand). Naturally this point of variation on the sum-assured as Rs.3,05,000/-(three lakh five thousand) in proposal form and on the demand in complaint petition at Para No.-4 as Rs.5,00,000/-(five lakh) and on the demand in prayer portion of the complaint  at tune of Rs.6,10,000/-(six lakh ten thousand) has not been cleared by the complainant  at the time of his argument.

              Naturally complainant failed to establish his case by any cogent document or any convincing argument. Hence we the commission reiterate that though this CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT is a beneficial  legislation for the consumer but complainant as consumer has failed to establish or prove his own case with cogent document and distinct convincing  submission.

             This commission had gone through the letters by the L.I.C. Department dated 02/07/2018, 17/08/2018 and 19/12/2018 where the department clearly mentioned the cause of their repudiation of this payment of policy and on perusal of those letters, we fine no fault of those repudiation-letters.

               The last point of our discussion is that, though under judicial consideration these O.P. No.2&3 may be directed to refund the premium if realized from the deceased given at her tenure behind this policy, but that also can’t be ordered due to mal-motive or cheating attitude of the insured with regard to the suppression of real fact of her another policies.

……….As per law of contracts any contract must be bona-fide and there would be no suppression of fact and if so, that contract must be voidable at the option of other party. Here the insured indulged the suppression of fact as creating other policies at her proposal form at column 9, naturally the other party like L.I.C.-insurer must have the option/right to make the contract void. No court/commission ever would give any benefit to any mala-fide parson or insured who suppressed any type of fact in the contract paper. Suppression of fact is a void contract.

   …….Accordingly the prayer of award in the prayer portion of the complaint stands dismissed.

Hence          Ordered,

that the case be and same is dismissed without any cost.

Let a copy of final order is supplied to the complainant at free of cost.