Haryana

StateCommission

A/396/2020

LIC OF INDIA AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARAMVIR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.396 of 2020

Date of Institution: 03.11.2020                                                              Date of Final Hearing: 17.10.2022

Date of pronouncement: 02.01.2023

 

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (LIC) Rohtak Division, Haryana through its Divisional Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (LIC), Branch Gohana, through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellants

Versus

Karamvir S/o Late Sewaram S/o Sh.Maman Singh, R/o Village Puthar,Tehsil Israna, Distt . Panipat, Haryana.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the LIC-appellants.

                   Mr.Raj Kumar, Advocate for the complainant-respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal No.396 of 2020 has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.01.2020 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.255 of 2018, which was allowed.

2.      There is a delay of 233 days in filing of this appeal, however appellant corporation has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of  233 days wherein,  it is alleged that  copy of the order dated 16.01.2020 was prepared on 09.09.2020 and was delivered by the registry on 10.09.2020. On receipt of the impugned order, comments of the advocate of the corporation  were called upon and after evaluating the same, file was sent to Divisional office for taking necessary permission. The case file was sent to the counsel and appeal was prepared. The delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to above said reason.

3.      While dealing with the prayer for condonation of delay, reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme wherein it has been held that when the substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other, the former has to be performed. It has further been held that the words “Sufficient Cause” have to be interpreted to advance the cause of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok A.O. and others, 2005(3) SCC 752 has held as under:-

“11.What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be held down by hard and fast rules. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Misra (1975)(2) SCC (840) this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi  Ram (ILR) (1918) 45 Cal. 94 (PC) it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) a Bench of three-Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.”

 

4.      In the instant case, after taking legal opinion from the counsel, the file was sent to Divisional office for permission to file the appeal and therefore we think it a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the delay of 233 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned.

5.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant’s brother Sewa Ram had purchased LIC policy bearing No.504751735 w.e.f. 28.10.2016 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the opposite party No.1.   The deceased had also paid premium to the OP.  However unfortunately, on 05.06.2017, the said brother of the complainant expired. Being  a nominee, complainant filed claim alongwith relevant documents with the OPs, but, the claim has not been paid. Faced with this situation, he sent legal notice dated 07.03.2018, but, to no avail. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, so this complaint was filed.

6.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their reply. It was submitted that  respondent have issued policy Bearing No.504751735 assuring the life of Sewa Ram under plan and term 815-816 for the sum assured Rs.5,00,000/-. The date of commencement of the policy was 28.10.2016.  The nominee of the policy was Mr.Karambir. The competent authority has repudiated the liability under the above said policy on the ground that policy in question has not completed three years from the date of FPR i.e. 31.10.2016 and the claim has been repudiated. At the time of taking policy, the deceased was suffering from jaundice. The deceased has taken a policy No.479243611 from the Panipat Branch but he did not disclose about his previous policy at the time of taking subsequent policy from Gohana Branch.  This suppression of material facts was cleverly done with an intention to mislead the OP corporation.  So the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Sonpeat has allowed the complaint vide order dated 16.01.2020, which is as under:-

“In view of our aforementioned findings and observations, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to give all the  admissible benefits available under the policy to the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 08.06.2018 till realization. ”

8.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellants have preferred this appeal.

9.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

10.    It is not disputed that the complainant’s brother Sewa Ram had obtained life insurance policy from the opposite parties.  It is not also disputed during the continuation of said policy, its holder had expired. It is also admitted that being a nominee, complainant applied for the claim amount under the same. However during verification it came out that the deceased had taken another policy from Panipat Branch but he had not disclosed about his previous policy at the time of buying this policy in question, but, the above fact was material, which the deceased cleverly concealed with an intention to mislead the LIC.  As we all know that the contract of insurance is totally based on utmost good faith, but, the way this policy was obtained by the deceased  after concealing material information therefore this policy stood violated for this fraud on the  LIC.  The life assured expired on 05.06.2017. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated.  Since the deceased has concealed the material facts at the time of obtaining the insurance policy, hence, the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The deceased has violated the very basic terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The case laws relied upon by the counsel for the respondents titled Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod Law Finder Doc Id # 1436805 is  fully applicable in the present case as in this case as the deceased did not disclose about the earlier policy at the time of obtaining the subsequent life insurance policy.  Learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

11.    As a sequel to the above discussion, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the learned District forum gravely and manifestly erred while allowing the complaint and passing orders. Hence, while accepting the appeal in toto, the impugned order dated  16.01.2020 passed by the learned District Commission, Sonepat is set aside for all intents and purposes and the complaint is accordingly stands dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.3,94,114/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

2nd  January, 2023            Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)