Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/46/2017

Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd.Through B.M. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rameshwar Prasad Jain s/o Ladu Ram Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishekh Bhandrai

13 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 46 /2017

 

Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through Br.Manager, Branch Above Vishal Mega Mart, Meershah Ali, Jaipur Road, Ajmer & ors.

Vs.

Sh.Rameshwar Prasad Jain s/o Laduram Jain r/o outside Junia Gate, Chaganpura, Kekri Distt. Ajmer.

 

Date of Order 13.6.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Abhishek Bhandari counsel for the appellant

Mr.S.P.Gandhi counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Ajmer dated 6.9.2016 whereby the claim has

2

 

been allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the insured has not disclosed the fact of previous policies which is material suppression of facts hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with delay of 90 days. The contention of the appellant is that earlier Mr.Bhuwan was looking after the litigation matters who has resigned from the appellant company on 26.9.2016 and company was not aware about the impugned order. Only on 1.12.2016 they could know about the decision and thereafter concerned officer Mr.Arindham Mishra immediately took up the matter and appeal has been filed.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that in presence of both the parties order has been passed on 6.9.2016 and on that day as per the contention of the appellant Mr.Bhuwan was the officer incharge and after twenty days of the order he has resigned from his office and this has not been disclosed that when and how Mr.Arindham Mishra has took up the matter. Even in the

3

 

affidavit of Mr.Arindham Mishra this fact has not been disclosed how the company could know about the judgment on 1.12.2016. Only this much has been said that in reconciliation in pending matters the appellant company could know about the order but admittedly this matter was not pending on 1.12.2016 and this fact has not been brought on record that when Mr. Arindham Mishra was deputed to look after the litigation affairs. Hence, delay of 90 days has not been explained satisfactorily and respondent has rightly relied upon II (2014) CPJ 258 (NC) Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mukhram where the National Commission has held as under:

 

“ Now Apex Court in Anshul Agarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, II (2011 ) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed:

“ It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras.”

 

Under these circumstances, we do not find any sufficient

4

 

ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.”

 

Further reliance has been placed on IV (2007) CPJ 250 (NC) Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Rankaushal Singh, 2008 (4) CPR 239 (NC) Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vs. DAC Research and Health Specialities, 2016 (3) CPR 193 (NC) Bhagirath Cold Storage Vs. Harinarayan & ors. and IV (2013) CPJ 472B (NC) Balwant Rai Vs. Housing Board Haryana.

 

Hence, in view of the above no sufficient reason has been explained to condone the significant delay of 90 days and the appeal is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

 

Merits have also been considered. The contention of the appellant is that earlier policy of the insured has not been disclosed. Hence, the claim should have been rejected and reliance has been placed on III (2010) CPJ 358 Dineshbhai Chandarana Vs. LIC of India where the deceased has taken 16 policies hence, it was held that non-disclosure of last policy is a material fact. Further reliance has been placed on III (2015) CPJ 616 (NC) Seema Agarwal Vs. LIC of India where on the facts of the case concealment of information regarding previous policy was held material.

5

 

The respondent has rightly relied upon III (2014) CPJ 582 (NC) Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Vs. Rayani Ramanjaneyulu where the National Commission has explained the material fact after relying on I (2000 ) CPJ 1 (SC) Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as under:

 

“ The term 'material fact' is not defined in the Act and therefore, it has been understood and explained by the courts in general terms to mean as any fact which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determining whether he would like to accept the risk. Any fact which goes to the root of the contract of insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be 'material'.

 

As stated in Pollock and Mulla's Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, any fact the knowledge or ignorance of which would materially influence an insurer in making the contract or in estimating the degree and character of risks in fixing the rate of premium is a material fact.”

 

Hence, in view of the above in the present matter the appellant could not set out the case that the non-disclosure of fact of earlier policy would effect the judgment of the appellant in regard to cover the risk or calculation of premium and the

 

6

 

Forum below has rightly held that it was not material fact and repudiation was not justified.

 

Further reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3139/2015 Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Vs. Paramjit Kaur , 2017 (2) CPR 324 (NC) Baleshwar Singh Vs. LIC of India and IV (2008) CPJ 316 West Bengal State Commission, LIC of India Vs. Purnima Roy.

 

Hence, in view of the above there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected in limine.

 

(Nisha Gupta )

President

 

nm