Haryana

StateCommission

A/931/2015

RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LT - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASBINDER KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.931 of 2015

Date of Institution: 23.10.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 10.11.2016

 

1. The Managing Director Reliance Life Insurance Company No.6 Ltd, Reliance house 6^th floor Haddow Road, Chennai.
2. The Branch Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Limited ground floor city centre opposite I.B. College, G.T Road, Panipat, Distt. Panipat Haryana.
3. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd Sector-17, Kurukshetra Distt. Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

Jasbinder Kaur W/o Shri Sanjeev Kumar Resident of village Bethala Tehsil Thanesar Distt. Kurukshetra.

                                       …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate counsel for appellants.

                             Shri Pardeep Sehrawat, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by complainant that her husband obtained policy No.16900953 for sum of Rs.Three lacs on 21.04.2010. He expired on 14.05.2010 due to heart attack. She submitted claim and Opposite party (O.P.) No.2 handed over a cheque of Rs.8008.75 to her and assured that remaining amount would be paid afterwards.  They obtained some papers from her, but, lateron repudiated claim vide letter dated 26.11.2010 which was altogether wrong.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that  at the time of obtaining insurance cover deceased life assured (DLA) was suffering from  Motor neuropathy since the year 2008 but concealed this fact, so she was not entitled for any compensation.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Kurukshetra (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 27.08.2015 and directed as under:-

“xxxxx we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay insurance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant for the death of her husband Sanjeev Kumar alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 24.02.2011 till the date of realization.  However, the amount of Rs.8008.75/- which has already been paid to the complainant by way of cheque by the opposite parties shall be deducted, if encashed.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal, wherein objection was raised that it was unit link policy and premium was invested in the share market for higher returns, so it was for commercial purpose and complaint was not maintainable.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the appellants-O.Ps. no-where alleged in the complaint that it was unit link policy and complaint was not maintainable.  Sanjeev Kumar had died due to heart attack and did not conceal any previous ailment, so learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint and this appeal be dismissed.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon Hon’ble National  Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Priya Sharma & ors. 2012 (4) CPJ 646, Tarlok Chand Khanna Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (1) CPJ 84, Shree Chamundi Mopeds Limited Vs. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat 1992 (2) CPJ 514 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devrajbhai Mepabhai Bhojani 2012 (3) CPJ 570.

7.      This argument is of no avail. Question of maintainability of the complaint is a question of law and can be raised even during the appeal as opined by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Rama Pati Tiwari Vs.District Registrar, Allahabad 2009 AIR (Allahabad) 102, so it cannot be urged that this fact cannot be looked into.  As per Ex.C-6 it is clear that DLA obtained unit link policy, which is commercial in nature. As per Section 2 (i) (d) of the Act if any service is availed for  commercial purpose then a person cannot be considered as consumer. As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 23^rd April 2013, ‘unit based insurance policy’ is commercial transaction and one cannot be considered as consumer.  From the perusal of proposal form Ex.C-6 it is clear that it was ‘Reliance Life insurance’ (Unit Linked policy the investment risk in investment). 

8.      When it was ‘Unit linked’ policy he cannot be considered as a consumer as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwala’s case (Supra). When the complainant is not a consumer the complaint was not maintainable.  When District Forum was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter it was not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgement without jurisdiction amounts to nullity as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.  Learned District Forum has wrongly granted compensation to the complainant, so impugned order dated 27.08.2015 is set aside, appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

November 10th, 2016 Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.