Delhi

North East

CC/175/2017

Arun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 May 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 175/17

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

1. Shri Arun Kumar

      S/o Late Shri Shiv Charan Singh

      R/o:  O-2/A-4, Dilshad Garden,

      Delhi-110095.    

                                                                                                             Complainant

	Versus

           1.  Muthood Finance Ltd.

  Address. F-1, F/F Dilshad Colony,

  Delhi-110095                                                                   Opposite Party No.1

 

2. Shri Ram Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

                Address. IIND Floor No-204, Jyoti Shikar distt. Center,

                Janakpuri, Delhi- 110058                                             Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTI ON:                ORDER RESERVED ON:                          DATE OF ORDER:

29.05.2017 22.04.2022 17.05.2022

           Coram:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President.

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member.

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Case of Complainant

1. The case of the complainant as revealed from the pleadings is that the deceased mother of the complainant namely, Smt. Mithlesh obtained a Gold loan amounting to Rs. 33,000/- from Opposite Party No-1.  She obtained the said loan on 07.07.2016. The Complainant is nominee in respect of the said loan obtained by his mother. The mother of the Complainant expired on 31.01.2017. At the time of advancing the loan the mother of the Complainant was told to obtain an insurance policy in respect of the said loan then the mother of the Complainant get insurance policy in respect of the said loan from Opposite Party No.2. It is alleged that the mother of the Complainant was told that in case of her death, loan amount was not required to be repaid and the balance amount would be paid to the nominee  i.e the Complainant. The mother of the Complainant paid a premium of Rs. 3,798/- for the said insurance of the gold loan. After the death of his mother the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 for payment of the balance amount to him. The Complainant also submitted the relevant documents. The Complainant was told that his claim was rejected on the ground that the mother of the Complainant has concealed the fact of her previous ailments at the time of obtaining the insurance policy. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties at the time of advancement of the loan has cheated the mother of the Complainant and deceitfully got the insurance of the loan amount done. The Complainant has prayed for awarding damages of Rs. 1.5 lakh and prayed for Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental harassment. He has also claimed Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges. 

Case of Opposite Party No.1

             2.        The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the Complainant has not approached with clean hands. It is alleged that the deceased mother of the Complainant had concealed the fact that she had previous ailments while she purchased the insurance policy from Opposite Party No. 2. It is alleged that Opposite Party No. 1 does not have any concern for payment of the claim of the Complainant. It is alleged that Complainant is not a consumer under a Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Opposite Party No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

Case of Opposite Party No.2

             3.        The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed written statement. It has raised the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the deceased Smt. Mithlesh at the time of filing the Membership Form and Declaration of good health had intentionally concealed the material facts regarding her previous medical history. It is alleged that she was suffering from respiratory ailments (COPD, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) and (CAD, Coronary Artery Disease). It is alleged that deceased Smt. Mithlesh obtained the insurance policy by concealing the material fact in respect of her previous ailments. It is alleged that the Complainant himself has stated that his mother was suffering from respiratory ailment for the last 2 ½ years and for this ailment she was being treated in the hospital. It is alleged that at the time of signing her Membership Form and Declaration of good health on 07.07.2016, Smt. Mithlesh had stated that she was not suffering from any ailment. It is stated that on the basis of her Declaration Smt. Mithlesh was given the insurance policy. It is stated that Smt. Mithlesh remained admitted in Metro Hospital and Cancer Institute from 12.10.2015 to 25.10.2015 and she was diagnosed for COPR with AE and CAD Severe LV systolic Dysfunction( LFEV 20%). It is alleged she also remained admitted in Khandelwal Hospital & Urology Centre, Delhi 10.12.2016 to 14.12.2016 and she was diagnosed with HTN with CAD and COPD. It is also alleged that Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 do not have any privity of contract.  It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to written statement of Opposite Party No. 2

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2 wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party No. 2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint. It is stated that deceased Smt. Mithlesh did not state she was not suffering from any ailment. It is stated that the objection raised by the Opposite Party No. 2 are without any merit. 

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of  Shri L.D Sharma, who is authorised representative of Opposite Party No.1. He has supported the case of Opposite Party No.1.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

7.  In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit reliance has been placed upon the copy of the statement of the Complainant and the copy of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and documents of Khandelwal Hospital and Urology Centre of Shri. Ravi Sharma, Senior Legal Executive working with Opposite Party No. 2. In his affidavit, he has supported the case of Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in its written statement.

Arguments and Conclusions

8. We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the record. From the pleadings of the parties, it is an admitted fact that Smt. Mithlesh had obtained gold loan from Opposite Party No.1 and she also obtained insurance policy in respect of the said loan from Opposite Party No. 2. It is also an admitted fact that Smt. Mithlesh expired during the subsistence of the said insurance policy and it is also admitted that Complainant is nominee of Smt. Mithlesh.
9. The claim of the Complainant was rejected by Opposite Party No. 2 on the ground that Smt. Mithlesh at the time of obtaining the insurance policy had concealed the fact of her previous ailment. The case of Opposite Party No. 2 is that it was on the declaration of her good health of Smt. Mithlesh, that this policy was issued to her. The copy of the said Membership Form and declaration of good health has been filed by the Opposite Party No. 2. The perusal of this document shows that this document bears the signature of Smt. Mithlesh. The perusal of this document further shows that Smt. Mithlesh has declare that she did not suffer and physical ailment/ disorder. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2 is that this declaration is given by Smt. Mithlesh was wrong. To support this contention, the Opposite Party No. 2 has relied upon the claimant statement dated 10.05.2017. The perusal of this document shows that the Complainant has stated in this document that her mother was having respiratory problem for the last 2 ½ years.  One Separate statement of the Complainant has also been filed wherein he has stated that his mother was suffering from respiratory problem from last 2 ½ years. Both the said statements bear the signature of the Complainant Arun Kumar. It is important to mention here that the Complainant is stated to be an Advocate by profession. So, it cannot be said that the said statement were got signed from him fruadulently or dishonestly. Hence, it is proved that Smt. Mithlesh had concealed the material fact of her ailment at the time of obtaining the insurance policy in question. Both the parties had relied upon the insurance policy and its terms and conditions. As per the terms and conditions of the said insurance policy in case the assured makes false / incorrect statement or withholding information, the policy shall be forfeited. In the present case, Smt. Mithlesh has made incorrect statement in her Membership Form and Declaration and has concealed the fact of her previous ailment, so the policy stood forfeited
10. In view of the above discussion, In our opinion the claim was right to rejected by Opposite Party No. 2. Therefore, the Complaint is dismissed. The case law relied upon by the Complainant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
11. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                                                            (Surinder Kumar Sharma)      

       (Member)                                                                                  (President)