JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Application for adjournment is moved as the counsel wants to produce some documents in English. We think that there is no need of it. 2. Arguments heard. 3. The allegation against the respondent is that her husband did not disclose and suppress the fact that he had got previous polices with DLF, Max Life, LIC, HDFC, Met life, ICICI and Reliance Life, the details of which are mentioned in page No.107 which are reproduced as follows: Name of company | Police dates | Policy No. | Sum Assured | DLF | 000008813 (14-09-2009) | 000008813 | 50,000/- | Max Life | 04-09-2009 29-03-2010 | 338326100 771169836 | 10,00,000/- 2,40,000/- | LIC | 28-08-2008 | 161927383 163885325 | 10,00,000/- 5,00,000/- | HDFC | 21-04-2009 | 12793458 13664924 13785795 | 8,00,000/- 1,25,000/- 5,00,000/- | Met Life | | 20214768 1200800743612 | 35,50,000/- | ICICI | 19-11-2010 | 10443884 | 3,00,000/- | Reliance Life | 30-08-2008 20-03-2009 | 12609697 14000267 | 10,00,000/- 25,000/- |
3. Counsel for the petitioners has also invited our attention towards the proposal form wherein vide column No.7 the question runs as follows: “At present are you carrying or applying for life, health or accident insurance with this company or elsewhere?” the insured answered ‘no’. 4. The State Commission has come to the conclusion that this is not a material fact which goes to affect the policies as such. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the OP Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co., to pay the amount while placing reliance on LIC Vs. Shahida Begum III (2011) CPJ 373 (NC) and Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. RAyani Ramanjaneyulu III (2014) CPJ 582 (NC). As a matter of fact this question also arose before this Bench in case CEO, Sahara India Life Insurance Vs. Rayani Ramanjaneyulu in R.P. No.1117 of 2014 decided on 01-08-2014 wherein we concluded that this was not a material fact. We also referred to a number of authorities and in Para No.3 we made the following conclusion:- “We are of the considered view that these authorities rather go to help the complainant/respondent. The Para 17 of the Apex Court order is crucial and significant. It is difficult to fathom as to why these facts would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determining the cover or whether he would like to take the risk. This appears to be a mistake committed by the agent. Agent is the villain and for his omissions and commissions, the insured or her LRs should not suffer. On the contrary, the repudiation on this ground alone smacks of malafide intention on the part of the OP. By no stretch of imagination it can be held to be a material fact. It rather puts the insured in a solid and impregnable position. 5. Aggrieved by this order SLP (C) No.30740 of 2014 was filed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the same on 21-11-2014. 6. Moreover, the facts of this case are peculiar. In this case, it appears that respondent-insured, Shri Kuldeep Singh was an illiterate person. The proposal form clearly goes to show that he signed in Punjabi language and it appears that he even does not know Punjabi properly. He was an agriculturist. The duty cast upon the insurance company-OP to make an inquiry from the agent. There is no inkling that an inquiry was made from the agent. 7. The revision petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. |
