This appeal has been filed U/S-15 of Consumer protection Act 1986(Herein after called the Act) against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission, Rourkela in C.D.Case No. 135 /2008. The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.

  2.        Considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

  3.           It is revealed from the pleading of the both parties that the Complainant’s mother has purchased a policy from the O.P vide No. 593037820 dated. 28-11-2005 for a sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- .The last monthly premium was paid against the policy on dtd. 24-01-2007. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant’s mother life assured was died on 25-01-2006 and was informed to the O.P along with claim form and original policy bond. But the O.P repudiated the claim alleging misrepresentation of fact. Then the complainant being the nominee represented before the OP to settle the claim. O.P did not take any steps to settle it. So challenging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps complaint was filed.

4.  The plea of the O.P that they  called the policy in question. He stated that the insured gave false information with regard to the income of her husband who was one RSP retired person. Further, as regards to the occupation of the life assured, she falsely represented as tailoring. The O.P also submits that, there is certain condition to issue policy as against the widow but the life assured by misrepresenting about her income and husbands income opted the policy. So they repudiated the claim.

5.  After hearing of both parties Learned District Forum pass the following order:

               “Basing on all these facts, the repudiation of claim by the OP is illegal which amounts to deficiency in service and thereby direct the O.P to pay the sum assured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the nominee i.e to this complainant along with interest at the rate of 5 % per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e 31-12-2008 till realization. Further the OP is directed to pay Rs 300/- towards cost of this case. The above orders are to be  carried out by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of this order.   

6.    Learned counsel on behalf of appellant submitted that the  impugned order is illegal because Learned District Forum  has not considered the submission of O.Ps properly. According to him, there is misrepresentation of fact by not disclosing about income and real occupation of insured. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

 7. Considered the submission of counsel of appellant and perused the DFR and impugned order.

8.    Appellant-OP alleged that they have called the policy in question under section 45 of the Insurance Act. The OP produces copy of the proposal form which shows that policy holder showing occupation of tailoring and income from own business had purchased policy. Counsel for the appellant submitted that L.I.C officer found that she was house wife   having no income. No document has been filed by the O.P to substantiate the allegation. Moreover, even if she is a house wife and occupation is tailoring to earn money that cannot be miss-statement of fact. However, there is no any cogent evidence to  repudiate the claim.

   9.   In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is confirmed. Appeal stands dismissed with no costs. 

         Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this                       Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.

            DFR be sent back forthwith.