NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3011/2006

SHRI BHOGILAL CHATURBHAI PATEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. R.M.VITHLANI

31 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3011 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 15/06/2006 in Appeal No. 784/2004 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. SHRI BHOGILAL CHATURBHAI PATELR/O. AMAR SOCIETY PLOT. NO. 65-A. KUMBHARVADA BHABNAGAR GUJARAT - ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIADEVISIONAL MANAGAER NEELAMBAG BHABANAGAR GUJRAT AND JEEVAN BULIDING RELIEF ROAD , AMHEDABAD GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. R.M.VITHLANI
For the Respondent :MR. NIKHIL JAIN

Dated : 31 Aug 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Insured, Rajeshbhai, took insurance policy on 27.6.2001 and requested that the policy be commenced from 15.5.2001.  He committed suicide on 14.5.2002.  Petitioner, who is the father of Rajeshbhai, filed a claim with the respondent insurance company, which repudiated the same on the ground that the insured had committed suicide within one year of the taking of the policy and, as per Condition No.5 of the policy, if the insured commits suicide within one year of the commencement of the policy, the policy would become void.  On repudiation of the claim, petitioner approached the Ombudsman, which cancelled the order of repudiation and directed the respondent to decide the matter after getting final police investigation report.  The claim was not settled.

 

          Being aggrieved, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the insured amount of Rs.1 lakh along with attending benefit and costs of Rs.25,000/-.  The District Forum, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.1 lakh along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of passing of the order till realization.  Rs.1,000/- were awarded as costs.

 

          Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, by the impugned order allowed the appeal holding that as per condition No.5, the policy became void as the insured had committed suicide within one year of the commencement of the policy.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Admittedly in this case, the insured had taken the policy on 27.6.2001 and on his request the policy was made effective from 15.5.2001.  In is not disputed before us that the insured had committed suicide on 14.5.2002, i.e., within one year of the commencement of the policy.  Condition No.5 of the insurance policy reads as under :

“This policy shall be void if life assured commits suicide (whether insane at the time) at any time on or after the date on which the risk under he has commenced but before the expiry of one year from the date of this policy and the corporation will not entertain any claim by virtue of the policy except to the extent of a third party’s bonafide beneficial interest acquired in the policy for valuable consideration this policy were paid last, at least one calendar this policy.”

 

          A bare perusal of this condition shows that the policy becomes void if the life assured commits suicide within one year from the date of the commencement of the policy.  In the present case, as the insured had committed suicide within one year of taking of the policy.  The policy became void and the State Commission has rightly held that the petitioner would not be entitled to the insured amount.  Dismissed.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER