NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1671 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 19/12/2008 in Appeal No. 792/2006 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. RAJIV VERMAS/o. Sh. Krishna Chandra R/o. LU. 20, Pitampura Delhi-88 Receiver Of Nominee Of Baby Nandita D/o. Late Anu Bhardwaj
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. LICRegistrar Having Its . Registered Office at . D.O.1, Jeevan Prakash Buliding 25,K.G. Marg, New Delhi -1
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 15 Jan 2010
ORDER
Cost of Rs.1,000/- awarded against respondent on 02.12.2009 is paid today to the counsel for petitioner. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent, on admission. Factual backgrounds are that deceased Anu Bhardwaj, secured a Life Insurance policy from respondent-Corporation on 15.12.2003 for assured value of Rs.3,00,000/-. However as ill luck would have it, assured died on 06.12.2004. Pursuant to death of the insured, claim was lodged with respondent-Corporation by nominee of deceased which was repudiated holding suppression of material fact as for status of health of the deceased, at the time of submission of proposal. Repudiation of claim was however resisted by petitioner as at time of submission of proposal forum had explicitly disclosed, that she had undergone treatment under Dr.J.C. Vij, at Pushpwati Singhania Reseach Institute, Delhi, where she remained hospitalised during the period of 30.01.2003 to 07.02.2003 for treatment of Ulcerative Colitis, for which she suffered, since 2000. Petitioner getting dissatisfied with repudiation of claim and there being no suppression of material fact, filed a consumer complaint with District Forum, which having overruled contention raised on behalf of respondent-Corporation, while accepting claim, directed respondent-Corporation to pay assured value of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also litigation cost of Rs,2,000/-. In appeal that was preferred with State Commission by respondent Corporation, State Commission, while affirming order of District Forum on material issue about there being no suppression of material of fact at the time of submission of proposal form by deceased assured, modified award reducing basic award of Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. However, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- was enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5000/-, respectively. Aggrieved with modification of award by State Commission, which was not conformity with assured value, revision came to be filed by petitioner. During pendency of this proceeding, we asked learned counsel for respondent-Corporation, in view of assertion made on behalf of deceased petitioner that she had disclosed about her treatment during the period of 30.01.2003 to 7.02.2003 in Singhania Research Institute, Delhi, to put on record the original proposal forum submitted by assured at the time of securing policy, however, affidavit has been filed by respondent-corporation stating inter-alia that the original proposal form is not available. The claim was repudiated by respondent-Corporation also holding that proceeding securing insurance policy, the deceased frequently availed, leave on not less then 17 occasions. We are afraid that this may frustrate the eligibility of the assured for payment of value by insurance-Corporation. However since the assured value of the policy was Rs.3,00,000/-, there appears to be no rationale for State Commission to reduce the awarded amount from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly while setting aside the finding of State Commission, we restore basic award of that of the District Forum. Revision petition accordingly succeeds, with no order as to costs. The amount paid to petitioner during pendency of proceeding shall be adjusted accordingly.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
