KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NOS. 584/11 & 769/11

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED :08.06.2012

PRESENT:

SHRI . K. CHANDRADAS NADAR          :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR        :  MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 584/11

The Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Muvattupuzha Branch,

Cherumattathil Plazha,

Muvattupuzha P.O.,                                   :  APPELLANT

(By Adv. Lal K. Joseph)

Vs

1.    Pushpa Chandran,
Kadavath House,

East Kadathi P.O., Muvattupuzha,

Ernakulam District.

2.    The Manager,

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Thomson Tower, 3^rd Floor, M.G. Road,

North End, Cochin – 682035,

Ernakulam District.

                                                                   :  RESPONDENTS

3.    The Manager,

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Pala Road, Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki District.           

(R1 by Adv.Ranjana R.)

APPEAL NO. 769/11

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

ICICI Pru Life Tower, 1089,

Appa Saheb Maratha Marg,

Prabha Devi, Mumbai – 400025.

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Thomson Tower, 3^rd Floor, M.G. Road,

North & Cochin, Kerala.

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Pala Road, Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki District.                                                     :  APPELLANT

(By Advs. Anil S. Kadam & Binu Sukumaran)

Vs

1.    Smt. Pushpa Chandran,
Kandavath House,

East Kadani P.O., Muvattupuzha,

Ernakulam District.

2.    ICICI Bank Ltd.                                         :  RESPONDENTS

Moovattupuzha Branch,

Moovattupuzha P.O.,

Kerala.

(R1 by Adv.Ranjana R.)

COMMON JUDGMENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  : MEMBER

          The above appeals are filed against the order dated: 30.3.11 of CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 243/10. The 3^rd opposite party is the appellant in appeal 584/11 and the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the appellants in 769/11. As per the impugned order, the opposite parties are under directions to settle the claim of the complainant’s husband’s vehicle loan as per Ext. P6 (a) schedule issued by the opposite parties and if any amount is paid by the complainant after the death of her husband, that amount should be returned to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order along with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

2.      In the complaint filed before the Forum, the complainant had submitted that her husband had availed a loan of Rs. 5,15,018/- from the 3^rd opposite party in the month of July 2008 and the sum had to be repaid within 60 monthly instalments at Rs.11,614/- per month. It was also submitted that her husband expired on 27.11.09 due to heart disease and since the loan covered insurance from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, she requested the opposite parties to close the loan as per the conditions of the policy and inspite of her requests, the opposite parties repudiated her claim on the ground that the complainant had suppressed the real facts relating to the health conditions of the complainant at the time of availing the policy. It is her case that the opposite parties ought to have closed the loan since the policy contained a condition that the loan would be closed in case of death of the loanee/insured.

3.      On receipt of notice from the Forum, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant, at the time of taking the policy, had not disclosed the treatment for liver cirrhosis since July 2005. They had also submitted that the death summary report from Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences was conclusive proof to show that the complainant had died due to Multiple Intracranial Haemorrhage. It was also submitted that the certificate from the Nirmala Medical Centre dated: 18.3.2010 stated that the loanee was under treatment in the hospital since July 2005 for liver cirrhosis as OP 10206. Contending that the repudiation of the claim was due to non -disclosure and suppression of material information, the opposite parties submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the repudiation was justified.

4.      The 3^rd opposite party also filed version accepting the contentions of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. However, it was admitted that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.5,15,018/- from the 3^rd opposite party and that on payment of Rs.20,000/-, the complainant was included in the master policy taken by the 3^rd opposite party from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and that since the complainant was a defaulter they had no other alternative but to take steps for the realization of the amount, since the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had repudiated the claim on tenable grounds. It was further submitted that the petition was not maintainable as against them.

5.      The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the son of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P6 (series). On the side of the opposite parties. Ext. R1 (series) was marked.

6.      Heard both sides.

7.      The learned counsels for the appellants/opposite parties in both appeals vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum cannot be sustained on the ground that the Forum has ignored the fact that the complainant’s husband (loanee) had obtained the policy without disclosing the fact that he was under treatment for liver cirrhosis as back from 2005 on wards. It is their very case that the suppression of material fact is enough for the opposite parties to repudiate the claim. The learned counsels have also relied on the decisions in “P.C. Chacko and Another Vs. Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others” (2008 (1) Supreme Court Cases 321) wherein it was held that fraudulent means obtained for obtaining the policy would justify the insurer to repudiate the claim and in the instant case also the same principle is applicable. Contending for the position that there was suppression of facts by the complainant in availing the policy, the learned counsels prayed for setting aside the order of the Forum below.

8.      We heard the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant also who supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records we find that it is the admitted case of all the parties that the complainant’s husband had availed a policy as a security for the loan and had paid Rs.20,000/- towards the premium. It is also the admitted fact that after remitting the instalments some time, the complainant’s husband passed away on 27.11.09. The complainant would argue that as per the policy conditions the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties ought to have paid the balance amount in the loan after her husband’s death and the steps taken by the 3^rd opposite party to release the amount from the legal heirs of the deceased were opposed to the conditions laid down in the policy. The complainant had also given evidence by examining her son as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P6. It is found that the Forum below has found that the case of the complainant is believable and has directed the opposite parties to pay the amounts remitted by the complainant after the death of her husband, the loanee and to pay for Rs.2,000/- towards costs. It is against these directions that the opposite parties have appealed before this commission stating that the Forum below has surpassed or rather ignored the settled position of law as contained in P.C. Chacko’s case.  The appellants/ opposite parties have also a case that the complainant’s son while giving evidence as PW1, has admitted that his father was under treatment for liver cirrhosis since July 2005 and the said fact was not revealed to the opposite parties at the time of availing the policy. On a perusal of the order we find that the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence in support of their contentions. It seems that they were sticking to a statement of the complainant’s son that the loanee was under treatment from July 05. On a perusal of the deposition of PW1, it is seen that though the complainant’s son has admitted that his father was under treatment for liver cirrhosis, he has denied the suggestion that such treatment was concealed from the opposite parties at the time of taking the loan. When the witness has denied the suggestion it is incumbent on the opposite parties to establish their case that the complainant was under treatment and had concealed the fact from the opposite parties by adducing cogent evidence. Though the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties/appellants had produced certain documents along with the appeal memorandum, we find that the said documents are photocopies of some documents and no explanation is forthcoming as to why the originals are not produced or the reason for not producing the same before the Forum below at the time of evidence. Under the above circumstances, it is our considered view that the Forum below has gone deep into every aspect of the case and has passed the impugned order which is only to be upheld. We are only inclined to dismiss the appeals which we do so accordingly.

In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The order dated: 30.3.11 of CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 243/10 is confirmed.

In the facts are circumstances of the present appeals, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

The office is directed to return the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR         :  MEMBER

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

Da