Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1138/2010

Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Late Shri Satya Narayan Namdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Through Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Kala

17 Apr 2015

ORDER

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

 

APPEAL NO: 1138/2010

 

Smt.Geeta Devi w/o Late Shri Satyanarayan Namdev, r/o Namdev Floor Mills,Bus Stand, Jhalarapatan, Distt. Jhalawar.

Vs.

Life Insurance Corporation of India through Br.Manager, Br.Office Mama Bhanej Circle,Jhalawar & ors.

 

Date of Order 17.4.2015

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

 

Mr. Ripusudan counsel for the appellant

Mr. J.P.Sharma counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

 

2

 

DCF Jhalawar dated 6.5.2010 by which it dismissed the complaint.

 

The complainant had filed a complaint before the learned DCF Bhilwara stating that her husband had taken a policy from the respondents on 28.3.2001 under 75-20 Plan. The husband of the complainant died on 1.6.2006. She filed a death claim with the respondents which was repudiated on the ground of suppression of facts regarding health at the time of revival of the policy. The respondents pleaded that the deceased had not paid regular monthly premiums and the policy was lying in a lapsed condition. When on 24. 5. 2002 the deceased filed a declaration of good health and paid six monthly instalments , the policy was revived. Subsequently, there was again default in payment of premium and on 27.8.2004 four monthly instalments of due premiums were paid and policy was again revived. Then again the policy was lapsed due to non-payment of monthly premiums and third time on 27.3.2006 two monthly premiums were paid and again the policy was revived. The respondents have submitted that at the time of revival of the policy, three separate declarations of good health were filed by the deceased in which he stated to be in good health while on investigation it was found that the deceased was suffering from

3

 

Tuberculosis since 2002 and had taken treatment in a Govt. Hospital,Jhalawar. Thus, at the time of revival he had suppressed information about his health and policy was revived fraudulantly.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that at the time of filing the declaration only the deceased was asked to sign the forms and he was not explained or asked about the declaration nor was he enquired whether he was suffering from any disease or not. The learned counsel for the respondents has refuted this argument. He has submitted that the deceased had revived the policy three times and on all the three occasions he filed declarations of good health with the company and the company on the basis of good faith and declarations of the deceased revived the policy after accepting the premium whereas the investigation revealed that he was patient of Tuberculosis since long and these facts were totally suppressed.

 

We have considered the arguments of the respective counsels. We are in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the deceased had made wrongful declarations at the time of revival of his policy. On three separate occasions three separate declarations were

4

 

filed and at every time he stated him to be in a good health while he was suffering from a serious disease of Tuberculosis since 2002. We cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was only made to sign the declarations and it is also not denied that deceased was suffering from Tuberculosis since 2002 and at the time of revival of the policy he was obliged to explain this fact to the insurance company.

 

We find no force in this appeal and we do not want to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned DCF. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

nm