BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1182/2017
The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Hyderabad Road, Near Bus Depot, Yadgir – 585 202. Represented by its Manager ( Legal & HPF), LIC of India, D.O-I, Jeevan Prakash, J.C. Road, Bangalore 560 002. (By Sri Rajesh Shetty) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Mr. Mohanlal, S/o Late Laxminarayan Dayama, Aged about 57 Years, R/at H.No.1-7-33, Near Gandhi Chowk, Main Road, Yadgir – 585 201. (By Sri Basavaraj Kareddy) | …Respondent/s |
ORDER
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.20.02.2017 passed in CC.No.02/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yadgiri.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that his wife had obtained Jeevan Sandhya Policy from the Opposite Party which commenced from 19.11.2010 to 28.03.2011 and during the policy in force, she died due to cardiac arrest. Being a nominee to the policy, the complainant claimed for compensation under the policy, but, the Opposite Party Company repudiated the claim for suppression of pre-existing disease. Against that repudiation, the complainant preferred a complaint before the District Commission. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party Company to pay Rs.12,80,000/- along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.
3. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant/Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments of both parties.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order and documents, we noticed that the Opposite Party has not produced any materials to show that the wife of the complainant had pre-existing disease before taking the policy. The documents produced before the District Commission i.e. Ex.R1 to R6 does not discloses any ailment for taking treatment with respect to the cardio vascular disease. We are of the opinion that the cause of death is due to severe heart attack and not any other ailment. Hence, the repudiation made by the Opposite Party is definitely a deficiency in service on their part. The District Commission has rightly awarded after considering the documents produced by both the parties. As such, we found that there are no merits in the appeal. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
