Haryana

StateCommission

A/219/2019

DHARAM PAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

YASHVEER KHARB

22 Dec 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:01.03.2019

                Date of final hearing:22.12.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 26.12.2023

 

First Appeal No.219 of 2019

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Dharam Pal, aged about 63 years, son of Shri Chattar Singh, R/o  Village Shahpur, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat.

.….Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. Yashvir Kharb, Advocate

Versus

 

1.      Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Office at Ground Floor, City Center, Opposite I.B. College, G. T. Road, Panipat.

2.      Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Authorized Signatory at registered office H Block, First Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400810.

…..Respondents.

Through counsel Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate.

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Yashvir Kharb, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Rohit Goswami, counsel for respondents.

 

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

 

                    Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.01.2019, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (now ‘District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.                The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that son of complainant (Late Sh.Vinod Kumar) had obtained insurance policy bearing No. 50512166 from opposite parties (“OPs”) on 10.11.2012 and the complainant was the nominee in said policy. Vinod Kumar (deceased)-Policy holder, son of the complainant had expired on 28.11.2012. It was alleged that the complainant informed the OPs regarding death of his son within time and on demand submitted all the documents required for settlement of the claim of the complainant, but the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 26.09.2015. It was further alleged that the complainant also sent legal notice dated 26.05.2016 to the OPs but nothing was done. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for payment of the claim assured amount of Rs.14,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a., Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation deficiency in service on the part of OPs and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice, OPs have appeared before learned District Commission and filed their written version submitting therein that submission of the proposal form has been admitted as well as issuance of the insurable policy in question has also been admitted. It was submitted that policy was issued by the company on the basis of information provided by the life assured in the proposal Form. Since the information provided by the life assured in the proposal form was established to be incorrect by the company, hence the company was well within its right to repudiate the said claim of the complainant. It was further submitted that since the OPs have acted within the four corners of the statutory provisions, no case of deficiency in services can be said to have arisen. It was further submitted that at the time of filling up the proposal form, the complainant did not disclose the correct information with regard to his other life insurance policies with other insurers, As per the death claim investigation, it was revealed that life assured had substantial life insurance cover with other insurance companies and the same was not disclosed at the application stage prior to issuance of the present policy, hence the company has been misled to issue the policy by submitting a false document. The life assured also failed to disclose about the additional insurance policies on his life, therefore, the claim has been rightly declined by the OPs. Finally it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission did not find any merit and dismissed the complaint as mentioned in para 1^st (supra).

5.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal for setting-aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

6.                Arguments have been advanced by Shri Yashvir Kharb, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rohit Goswami, learned counsel for respondents. With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

7.                It is an admitted fact that Shri Vinod Kumar (deceased) obtained an insurance policy No.50512166 from the OPs on 10.11.2012 and present appellant-complainant being his father is the nominee. It is also admitted that life assured expired on 28.11.2012 and appellant-complainant lodged the claim by submitting all the relevant documents with the respondents-OPs, who repudiated the claim vide letter dated 26.09.2015. It is not in dispute that the claim was repudiated on the ground that life assured concealed the material fact in the proposal for insurance dated 09.11.2012, regarding obtaining other insurance policies and life assured has passed away within a period of 18 days from the date of commencement of the insurance policy.

8.                As far as the question of concealment of obtaining other insurance policies by the life assured-Shri Vinod Kumar (deceased) is concerned, it is well settled law that the contract of insurance is based on the Doctrine of Ubberima Fides and the insured is obliged to give full and correct information on all matters which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in determining whether he will accept the risk and if he would, at what rate of premium and subject to what conditions. However, in the present case, life assured has not disclosed about the other insurance policies obtained by him. Moreover, the proposal form is not merely a document to be signed and submitted for formality as it is the base for contract of insurance. In view of abovementioned facts and circumstances, discussed above, learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of complainant.

9.                Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings given by the learned District Commission on merits. Impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law. Therefore, the present appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is therefore, dismissed.

10.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.              Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on 26^th December, 2023

                                                                                       

           

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench-III