Haryana

StateCommission

A/535/2015

LIFE INSURANCE CORP.OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHAN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

NEHA SHARMA

20 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      535 of 2015

Date of Institution:      18.06.2015

Date of Decision :       20.10.2015

 

1.      Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), through its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.  

2.      Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), through its Manager, Branch Office, Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, Tehsil  Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Krishan Kumar s/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Resident of Village Khera, Post Office, Bawania, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate for respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is preferred against the order dated March 27^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul   (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.      Sushma Yadav (since deceased) wife of Krishan Kumar-complainant (respondent herein) obtained a Life Insurance Policy (Annexure C-2) on 02.03.2010 from Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short ‘LIC’)-Opposite Parties-appellants for Rs.7,50,000/-. It was a single premium policy under plan and term 801-08-01. The Life Assured paid lump sum premium of Rs.6.00 lacs. The life assured died on July 2^nd, 2012. The complainant filed claim with the LIC but the same was repudiated vide letter Annexure C-3 on the ground that as per certificate dated 17.02.2010 (Annexure R-3) issued by Chief Medical Officer, Mahendergarh, the Life Assured was 40% visual disabled but this fact was concealed by her in the proposal form at the time of purchasing the policy. However, bid value for Rs.5,78,064/- was paid to the complainant through cheque No.384827 dated 27.02.2013. Aggrieved of the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

3.      The LIC-opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…hence the opposite party is liable to pay the insured amount of Rs.7,50,000/- with benefits to the complainant after deducting Rs.5,78,064/- already paid by the opposite party to the complainant. Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite party to pay the balance insured amount plus benefits to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of this order till the date of payment.”

5.      The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the life assured might have died due to hear attack but she had 40% visual disability of one eye which was not disclosed by her in the proposal form at the time of obtaining the policy.

6.      It is not the case of the appellants that they had repudiated the claim of complainant on account of non-disclosure of visual disability of one eye. It is the case of the appellants that they have refunded the fund value of the policy, that is, Rs.5,78,064/-. It is not in dispute that the insured amount was Rs.7,50,000/-. Since the appellants themselves did not press the clause of non-disclosure/misstatement by the life assured nor produced the proposal form whereby the alleged mis-statement was made by the life assured, so, the case of the appellants lacks evidence. In view of this no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.  

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 20.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL