THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 284/2015
Sri. Harishchandra
S/o Ganapathi Naik,
Aged about 65 years,
Occupation Retd. Service,
R/a Ganganivas,
At and Post Kasaba Keni,
Ankola Taluk.
….Appellant/s.
(By Shri/Smt. K.Govindraj, Adv.,)
-Versus-
Life Insurance Corporation of Indai,
Branch Office Jeevan Sharavathi,
Ramtirth Cross, Honnavara,
Uttarakannada District-581 334.
By its Branch Manager.
……….. Respondent/s
(By Sri/Smt S.S.P., Adv.,)
:ORDERS:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The complainant in C.C.No.106/2013 had preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Commission, Uttara Kannada by dismissing his complaint, where he filed a complaint before the District Commission for a direction to Opposite Party to pay assured sum of Rs.50,000/- which was matured under the policy taken in favoour of his physically handicapped son.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant had obtained a policy i.e. Jeevan Adhar Policy bearing No.631350 which commencing from 01.01.1996 for the term of 10 years and maturity date is 03.01.2006. Accordingly, after obtaining the policy, he is paying the premiums through his salary deductions. The sum assured under the policy is Rs.50,000/-. After the completion of 10 years, the complainant claimed for the maturity amount in order to take care of his mentally disordered and handicapped son, but the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim on the ground that Jeevan Adhar Policy is a whole life policy providing for benefits as per the policy terms and conditions to the beneficiary/dependents only on the death of the life assured. Being aggrieved by the said rejection of the claim by the Opposite Party, the complainant preferred a complaint before the District commission.
3. The District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint holding that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled to get an assured amount under the policy.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant is in appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of appellant. Respondent not argued in spite of providing sufficient time.
6.. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed that the complainant is an employee who obtained Jeevan Aadhar Policy to the welfare of his mentally disordered and physically handicapped son to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The term of the policy is 10 years and maturity date is 01.01.2095, which means to say it is a policy for 99 years. The complainant had obtained the policy only for the purpose of safeguard his son’s health and welfare, whereas the terms and conditions of the policy is peculiar that only after the death of the proposer/life assured, the said maturity amount is payable to the life insured. We are of the opinion that such type of policies are against to the natural justice. Why the Opposite Party is anticipating the death of the life assured in order to pay the matured amount to the insured is not explained. The very purpose of obtaining a policy is to safeguard the interest of the mentally disordered son of the complainant. If they denied paying the said assured amount, the very purpose and welfare is going to be neglected. Hence, considering the physical/mental condition of the insured, it is proper to direct the Opposite Party to pay the entire assured amount along with accrued bonus to the complainant in order to safeguard the interest of the insured because after the death of the life assured i.e., Father of the insured, he cannot voluntarily or independently manage the daily routine life. Hence, the repudiation made by the Opposite Party is against to natural justice. As such the complaint has to be allowed. But the District Commission in spite of appreciating the mental status of the insured, has dismissed the complaint. Hence, it has to be set-aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is allowed with cost.
The impugned order dated:05/04/2014 passed by Uttara Kannada District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.106/2013 is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is allowed.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay the sum assured of Rs.50,000/- along with accrued bonus till the date of this order together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.10,000/-
The Opposite Party is directed to comply the above order within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to initiate recovery proceedings as per the C.P. Act.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
