Haryana

Karnal

70/2012

Smt. Sudesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kamal Bhardwaj

19 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.70 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt. 2.02.2012

                                                               Date of decision:  07.09.2015

 

Smt. Sudesh wife of late Shri Dharambir Sharma son of Shri Basti Ram resident of village Sera tehsil and district Panipat.

                                                             ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH:-

1.The Divisional Office, LIC of India, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

2. LIC of India Branch Unit-I, 485, ModelTown, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                           ……… Opposite parties.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Sh.Kamal Bhardwaj Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Satpal Singh Advocate for the OPs.

         

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that  late Sh.Dharambir the husband of the complainant had taken insurance policy No. 175661054 dated 23.5.2007  for a sum of Rs.one lac  for his life from Opposite Parties ( in short Ops)  and  she was nominee in the said policy. Plan of the policy  was 149/72/16 and premiums  of Rs.3699/- each were to be paid half yearly.  He paid the premiums of the said policy regularly. Unfortunately, on 26.12.2008 while he was working in the fields, he suffered from inflammation of stomach with acute pain,  resulting into temporary paralysis of  his body.  Immediately he was shifted to  Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences  (  in short PGIMS) Rohtak  where he was treated till  27.12.2008 and then referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi ( in short AIIMS, Delhi) and then to  Saffadarjang Hospital, New Delhi, where  was diagnosed of Perforation Peritonitis  and Vasculities,  which could not be controlled and removed by the doctors but he passed away on 5.1.2009. After his death, the complainant being nominee informed the Ops and submitted claim form alongwith all the relevant papers. The  Ops got the matter investigated and concerned doctors of AIIMS and Saffadarjang Hospital, who treated the deceased life assured gave in writing regarding treatment.  Thereafter, officials of the Ops sought information regarding date of first admission in PGIMS, Rohtak and the doctors informed in writing regarding particulars on the prescribed form. The officials of Ops prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other without any sufficient and cogent reason. Ultimately the  complainant served legal notice dated 20.12.2010 on the Ops  but the same did not yield any result.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complainant has no cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint has been filed with a view to harm the Ops with ulterior motive and that the complaint is not maintainable as the  complaint already filed by the complainant before the District Consumer Forum, Panipat, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.1.2012.

 

                   On merits, it has been denied that  the deceased life assured was depositing the premiums regularly. It has been submitted after paying the initial one premium only,  policy got lapsed and was revived  for premiums  for 11//2007 to 11/2008 on 18.12.2008 after accepting three installments at a stretch  and the deceased life assured died only after 17 days of the revival of the policy. It has  further been averred that as per certificate of  Saffadarjang Hospital, New Delhi the deceased life assured had been admitted  in PGIMS, Rohtak on 26.12.2008 and after one day referred to Saffadarjang Hospital as a case of  perforation Peritonitis. The deceased life assured was also  k/c/o  Vasculities and given h/o  CVA two months back . Thus, before the date of revival, life assured was not having good health, which was not disclosed by him at the time of revival to the Ops. The complainant mentioned the cause of death of the deceased life assured as  heart attack in form 3783, which  was different from the cause of death mentioned in the complaint and thus the complainant tried to suppress the factum of  illness of the deceased. It has further been alleged that deceased life assured had taken treatment from Modern Hospital, Panipat on 7.4.2008 due to pain in abdomen and loose motion. He also took treatment from  Ravindra Hospital, Panipat on 12.9.2008 and 14.9.2008 for pain and  fever and from  Sanjeevni Hospital, Panipat on 8.10.2008  and 16.10.2008. All those facts were not disclosed by the   deceased life assured in declaration of good health form No.3816 at the time of revival of the policy.  Had those ailments been disclosed , the Ops would  have denied for revival of the policy. It has also been submitted that claim of the complainant was repudiated by declaring the  revival null and void and she was informed vide  order dated  9.5.2011.  The repudiation of the claim was on the basis of concealment of facts. Thus, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, she  filed her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Ops affidavit of Shri  Balihar Singh Manager (Legal) Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O9 have been tendered.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.      

 

6.                It is not in dispute that the deceased life assured Dharambir, the  husband of the complainant had taken insurance policy for a sum of  Rs.one lac for his life from Ops, on 23.5.2007 and he died on 5..1.2009.The Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that policy had lapsed  due to non payment of premiums for the period of 11.2007 to 11/2008 and the same was revived on 18.12.2008 after accepting three installments at a stretch and that  the deceased life assured was not having good health at the time of revival of the policy, but that fact was not disclosed in good health form No.3816.

 

7.                According to the case of the Ops  as put forth in the written statement, the deceased life assured was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak on 26.12.2008 and after one day referred to Saffadarjang Hospital, New Delhi as a case of   Perforation Peritonitis   and also K/c/o Vasculities and given h/o CAV  two months back i.e. before the date of revival of the policy. It has also been  averred that the  deceased life assured got treatment   from Modern Hospital, Panipat on 7.4.2008 due to  pain in abdomen and loose motion, he also took treatment from  Ravindera Hospital , Panipat on 12.9.2008 and 14.9.2008 for pain and fever and from Sanjeevni Hospital Panipat on 8.10.2008 and 16.10.2008

 

8.                The policy was issued by the OPs to the deceased life assured on 23.5.2007.  Neither it has been pleaded  nor there is any material on record  which may show that deceased life assured was not having good health at the time of submitting proposal form for obtaining the policy. The Ops have alleged that he was not having good health at the time of revival of the policy and he had concealed  regarding his ailments in the good health form NO.3816. However, the Ops have not placed on the file good health form No.3816, which was allegedly submitted by the deceased life assured at the time of revival of the  policy. In this way the best available evidence has been withheld by the OPs, therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn against them. Thus, the Ops have failed to establish that deceased life assured had concealed the factum  of his illness at the time of  submitting good health form No.3816 for revival of the policy. As, the sole ground on which Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant has not been established, the  repudiation of the claim of the complainant cannot be termed as legal or justified in any manner. Resultantly, there was deficiency in services on the part of Ops in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

 

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of the sum assured together with all other admissible benefits thereto to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of thepresent complaint i.e. 2.02.2012 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:07.09.2015                                                                             

                                                                 (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member

 

 

 

Sudesh Versus LIC of India.

 

Present:        Sh.Kamal Bhardwaj Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Satpal Singh Advocate for the OP.

 

                   This order shall dispose of an application filed by the complainant  for condonation of the delay.

 

2.             It has been submitted that previously complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Panipat, which was dismissed on 20.1.2012.  The factum of dismissal of previous complaint   for lack of jurisdiction was mentioned and request for condonation of delay was made in para no.9 of the complaint. The delay in filing the present complaint was not  due to malafide intention, but on account of time spent in the previous complaint filed at Panipat.

 

3.                      The application has been resisted by the Ops.  Reply there to has been filed. Objections have been raised that the application is an abuse of the process of law; that the application is not legally maintainable and that the application is hopelessly barred by time because the same was  filed more than two years of the filing the present complaint and that too at the stage of final arguments. The factum of filing of the previous complaint by the complainant before the District Consumer Forum, Panipat has not been disputed. However, it has been submitted that  complainant was not granted permission to file afresh complaint on the same cause of action by the District Consumer Forum, Panipat and thus there is delay of more than four years in filing the present complaint.

 

4.                          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

5.                          The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant previously filed  complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Panipat,  which was dismissed on 20.1.2012 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed on 2.02.2012  and  such facts were mentioned in para no.9 of the complaint with a prayer to condone the delay in filing thepresent complaint.   After excluding the time spent in those proceedings at Panipat, the present complaint is within time. Thus, there is  sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the present complaint. He has placed reliance on Kohinoor International Vs.Intra  Ship and others 2007(2) CLT page 520.

 

6.                          To wriggle out of the aforesaid contention  learned counsel for the Ops laid emphasis on the contention that benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be granted to the complainant because  the same applies only to the suits,   appeals and applications  filed before the courts and not  quasi judicial bodies or Tribunals. It  has further been argued that  District Consumer Forum, Panipat had not granted any permission to the complainant to file afresh complaint before this Forum on the same cause of action. Therefore, the delay in filing the present complaint cannot be condoned.  In support of his contention, he relied upon M.P.Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015(2)  Apex Court Judgments, 545 (SC) and Bakhtawar Singh Vs.Sada Kaur (Vol. CXV-(1997-1) 678.

 

7.                          The proposition of law  laid down in the authorities  cited on behalf of the Ops cannot be disputed, but the same do not render any help to the Ops under the facts and circumstances of the present case  In M.P.Steel Corporation’s case (Supra)   Hon’ble Supreme Court  held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only to the suits, appeals and applications which are filed  in courts and not quasi Judicial  bodies or Tribunals. It was further held that even where Section 14 of the Limitation Act may not apply, principles on which Section 14 of the Act is based, being principles which advance the cause of justice, would nevertheless apply.  In Bakhtawar Singh’s case (Supra)  earlier suit was withdrawn with permission to file afresh on the same cause of action but the  order did not indicate as to what was defect in the earlier suit. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that  no case for institution of the suit was made out and benefit of limitation could not be granted.

 

8.                          The  proposition of emerges from the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court M.P.Steel Corporation’s case (Supra)     that principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act  being principles which advance the cause of justice, would apply even to cases filed before the quashi Judicial bodies or Tribunals. Moreover, limitation for filing a complaint has been provided  as two years from the date on accrual of cause of action as per  provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. However,  according to   sub section 2 of Section 24-A,  a complaint may be instituted after the period of two years if the complainant satisfies the District  Forum, State  Commission or National Commission, as the case may be that he had sufficient cause in not filing the complaint within such period. Thus, it is quite clear that complaint may be  instituted even after a period of two years,  if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not  filing the complaint within such period.

 

8.                          In  Kohinoor International’s case (Supra)   Complaint was filed in the State Commission  within limitation in the year 1999 and the same was  dismissed on the ground   that it exceeded pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission. The complaint was filed again before the State Commission  limiting the claim below 20 lacs and the same was also dismissed holding that complaint should have been filed before the National Commission.  Thereafter, complaint was filed before the National Commission excluding the  time spent before the State Commission. It resulted in  delay of about 130 days  though the complaints initially filed before the State Commission were within limitation period. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay.

 

9.                          In the present case, the death of life assured took place on 5.1.2009. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on 9.5.2011.Complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Panipat was filed on 20.1.2011 i.e. well within period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action but the same was dismissed on 20.1.2012 on the ground of lack of  territorial jurisdiction. Copy of the order dated 20.1.2012  Ex.C1 shows that complainant bonafidely pursued   his complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Panipat  under the impression that office of OP was situated at Panipat, therefore, District Consumer Forum, at Panipat had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.  It appears that complaint was filed due to wrong impression that the complaint could be filed where the office of OP was located. After excluding the time spent before the District Forum, Panipat, the complaint is within limitation. Thus, the complainant has sufficient cause in not filing the present complaint within two years of  date of  accrual of cause of action.  Therefore, delay in filing the present complaint is hereby condoned and the application is allowed accordingly.

 

         

Announced
dated:07.09.2015                                                                             

                                                                 (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member

 

 

Present:        Sh.Kamal Bhardwaj Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Satpal Singh Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the main complaint. Vide our separate order of the even date, the application for condonation of delay  as well as main complaint accepted.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

         

Announced
dated:07.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                 (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member