Haryana

StateCommission

A/982/2015

KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIRMALA - Opp.Party(s)

HITENDER KANSAL

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

          

                                                                    First Appeal No  :   982 of 2015

Date of Institution:  16.11.2015

                                                                   Date of Decision:    15.02.2017

 

 

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager, Delhi Road, Near D Park, Rohtak.

 

                             Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Nirmala wife of late Sh. Budh Ram

2.      Babita daughter of late Sh. Budh Ram

3.      Sonam daughter of late Sh. Budh Ram

4.      Vijay son of late Sh. Budh Ram

 

          All residents of Village Kheri Sampla, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak.

Respondents-Complainants

5.      Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited, through its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager, Delhi Road, Near D Park, Model Town, Rohtak.

 

6.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager, Delhi Road, Near D Park, Rohtak.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

Argued by:          Mr. Hitender Kansal, Advocate for the appellant.

                             None for the respondents No.1 to 4.

                             (Service of respondents No.5 & 6 dispensed with vide order dated February 02^nd, 2016)

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          Budh Ram, since deceased husband of Nirmala and father of Babita, Sonam and Vijay (complainants herein) obtained loan of Rs.5,20,000/- from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Limited-opposite party No.2 on December 18^th, 2010 vide Loan Agreement Exhibit RW2/3 to purchase a vehicle.  Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Limited purchased insurance policy from Kotak Life Insurance-opposite party No.1 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) in respect of the loan obtain by Budh Ram vide policy Exhibit R-1.  Budh Ram died on December 13^th, 2011.  The complainants filed claim with Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Limited and the Insurance Company.  The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide letter dated March 29^th, 2012 Exhibit C-4 because Budh Ram committed suicide within a year of his admission as a member under this policy as provided under clause 7 of the insurance policy.  The complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’). 

2.      The complaint was allowed vide order dated October 21^st, 2015 directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.6,39,405/-, that is, the amount equivalent to the outstanding principal amount disbursed and due from the Member as on the date of his death alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, May 15^th, 2012 till actual payment and Rs.2500/- litigation expenses to the complainants.

3.      Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

4.      Notice was issued to the complainants on December 08^th, 2015.  On February 02^nd, 2016 Shri Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate appeared for the complainants.  The case was adjourned to March 28^th, 2016 for arguments but none appeared on behalf of the complainants.  Still, in the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to May 27^th, August 10^th, October 19^th December 22^nd, 2016 and February 15^th, 2017.  Today also, nobody appeared on behalf of the complainants. Thus, the complainants are hereby proceeded ex parte. This Commission thinks it appropriate to decide the appeal on merits after hearing learned counsel for the Insurance Company and going through the case file.

5.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that the Insurance Company was not to indemnify the owner because Budh Ram committed suicide within one year from the date of commencement of insurance cover as per Clause 7 of the insurance policy.  To support his contention, reliance has been placed upon report of the police (Exhibit C-7), Death Report (Exhibit C-8) drawn by Police of Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak attached with the statements of Jai Bhagwan, Vijay and Raj Kumar and Postmortem Report (Exhibit C-9) to prove that Budh Ram committed suicide. 

6.      In Exhibit C-7, it has been reported by the Police that Budh Ram committed suicide on December 13^th, 2011.  It has also been so mentioned in the death report (Exhibit C-8) and the statements of Jai Bhagwan, Vijay and Raj Kumar that Budh Ram committed suicide and in the opinion of the Medical Officer, the cause of death was hanging and its complications.  From the documents referred to above, it is unhesitatingly held that Budh Ram committed suicide.  Clause 7 of the policy, Death due to natural causes, suicides etc reproduced as under:-

          “xxxxxxxxx

          Further, any claim arising as a result of a member under this policy committing suicide (whether being sane or insane at such time) within one year of commencement of his/her cover will be disallowed.”

         

7.      A reading of clause shows that in case member under this policy commits suicide within one year of commencement of his cover, the benefits would not be disbursed.  The policy commenced on December 18^th, 2011 and Budh Ram died on December 13^th, 2012, that is, within one year of the purchase of the policy.  This being so, Budh Ram was not covered under the policy and the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of complainants.  The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint.  The appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.  

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 15.02.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President