THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2023
APPEAL NO.1008/2015
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, BD Road,
Chitradurga, Chitradurga District
Represented by the … Appellant/s
Authorized Representative
Sri.K.Bheemasena Rao,
Manager (Legal & HPF),
LIC of India, Division office
No.1, JC Road, Bengaluru-560 002
(By Sri.Rohith Gowda, Advocate)
V/s
Smt.Mamath,
W/o late K.B.Thippeswamy, … Respondent/s
Aged about 65 years,
R/o Dandhinakurubara Hatti,
Chitradurga Taluk,
C/o. M.Jagadeesh,
Amma Flour Mill, IDUP
Layout, Chitradurga
(Notice served – Absent)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.26/2015 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Chitradurga which directed this Appellant/ Opposite Party to pay assured amount under the policies obtained by the late husband of the complainant and submits that the husband of the complainant during his life time, he obtained two life insurance policies one for assured amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and another for Rs.30,000/. After accepting the first premium, they have issued a policy in favour of late husband of the complainant. Such being the case, when the policies were in force, the husband of the complainant admitted to hospital on 29.4.2014 and died on 16.5.2014. After the death of the complainant’s husband, the complainant being the nominee had claimed for compensation by virtue of the policies, the said claim was repudiated for the reasons that, the husband of the complainant had suppressed his ailment such as diabetes mellitus and also not disclosed that he is consuming alcohol since 20 years. Aggrieved by the said, the complainant preferred the complaint before District Consumer Commission and alleged deficiency in service and sought for assured amount. The District Consumer Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay the sum assured amount of Rs.3,30,000/- under the two policies with 6% interest per annum along with Rs.10,000/- mental agony and Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses. Hence, the appellant before this Commission and further submits that the husband of the complainant was consuming alcohol since from 20 years and he suffered diabetes mellitus prior to taking the policy, the consumption of alcohol since from long time leads to some other health complications which resulted in diabetes and contributed to death. Hence, the claim of the complainant was rejected rightly but the District Consumer Commission not appreciated the defence taken by the Opposite Party. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission.
2. Heard the arguments
3. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, we noticed that, the claim of the complainant was repudiated only based on the reason that the husband of the complainant was consuming alcohol since from 20 years and also for the reasons that he had diabetes mellitus, the said ground for repudiation is not justifiable. Mere taking alcohol regularly not amounts to any diseases, no medical literature discloses that consumption of alcohol is a disease and further diabetes which was suffered by the husband of the complainant is also not comes under the category of disease. It is only a disorder which can be regularized by keeping regular health condition and good life style, hence it is not considered as disease it is only disorder. Merely basing on the said disorder the claim of the complainant cannot be rejected. Therefore, in our opinion it is a clear case of deficiency of service in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant. The District Consumer Commission rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and allowed the complaint. According to us has no irregularity, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is according to law. No interference is required. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
09-3-2023
O R D E R
The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
