Haryana

StateCommission

A/507/2019

POONAM DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SUNEEL RANGA

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First appeal No.507 of 2019

Date of institution:14.03.2019

Date of Final Hearing: 17.10.2022

Date of pronouncement: 02.01.2023

 

Smt.Poonam Devi, aged about 42 years, widow of late Sh.Sewa Ram S/o Maman, R/o village & P O Puhar, Tehsil Isran Distt. Panipat.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, P.O. Box No.106, Jeevan Parkash, 489, Model
   Town  Karnal through its Divisional Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch office, at Rajguru Market, Branch-1, Panipat through Brach Manager.
3. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Bharti, Connaught Circus, New Delhi through its Zonal Manager.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Raj Kumar, Advocate for the  appellant.

                   Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the complainant-respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.507 of 2019 has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.03.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.92 of 2018, which was dismissed.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant’s husband had obtained Life insurance policy bearing No.479243611 on 12.10.2016 from the opposite parties. The sum assured was  Rs.5,00,000/-.     However unfortunately, on 05.06.2017, the husband of complainant expired. Being  a nominee, she filed claim alongwith relevant documents with the OPs, but, her claim was repudiated vide letter dated 29.12.2017 without any plausible reason.  Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, so this complaint.

4.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their reply submitting that  at the time of filling up the proposal form, DLA did not disclose the correct information about his other life insurance policy from Gohana Branch and also taking his treatment from Batra Hospital, Panipat. The deceased was suffering from Liver problems i.e. ALD as is evident from the prescription of Batra hospital.  The deceased was also suffering from Jaundice and Hernia as per certificate of DN hospital dated 13.11.2014. DLA did not disclose actual history of his diseases at the time of obtaining the insurance policy. This suppression of material facts was cleverly done with an intention to mislead the corporation.  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, Panipat has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 14.03.2019.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondents. 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.

7.      It is not disputed that the complainant’s husband 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 Gohana 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 complainant 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.

8.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, the appeal  stands dismissed.

9.                Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

10.              A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.              File be consigned to record room.

 

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

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)