Haryana

StateCommission

A/1210/2014

Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sandeep Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

16 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1210 of 2014

Date of Institution: 17.12.2014

                                                               Date of Decision: 16.03.2016

 

1.Aegon Religare Life Insurance  Co. Ltd. through its authorized signatory building No.3, 3^rd floor, Unit No.1, NESCO IT Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063.

2.The Branch Manager Aegon Religare Lire Insurnace Co. Ltd. Office at :Above Karur Vyasa Bank, Near ICICI Bank, G.T. Road, Panipat.

 

…..Appellants

Versus

 

Sandeep Kumar S/o Late Sh.Kanwar Bhan R/o 125, New Grain Market, Distt. Samalkha, Panipat.

                                      …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Ms. Pooja Nagra, Advocate counsel for appellants.

                             Shri L.K.Gupta and Mr. Sunit Tulli, Advocates counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Complainant alleged that his father namely Kanwar Bhan obtained life insurance policy for Rs.Ten lacs from one agent of opposite parties (O.Ps.).  Proposal form was filled by them on 03.11.2010 and policy was issued on 18.11.2010. First premium of Rs.40,000/- was paid to the insurance company. After verification, second premium of Rs.40,000/- was deposited on 16.11.2011.  Unfortunately on 30.12.0211 the father of the complainant died.  Being nominee he filed claim form and submitted at the office of the O.P.No.1.  Despite several requests, O.Ps. issued a cheque of Rs.54908/- dated 10.10.2012 to the complainant, which was not encashed. The complainant requested many times to release the genuine amount of Rs.Ten lacs, but, they lingered the matter by one pretext or the other.  He submitted all the relevant documents with the O.ps., but, they did not release the actual amount.

2.      Opposite parties were proceeded ex parte.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Panipat (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“In view of the above discussion, the present complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite party to pay
Rs.10,00,000/- as insured amount to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. Cost of litigation quantified of Rs.3300/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.s/appellants have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File persued.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per entry against serial No.86 of voter list of 2011 Annexure A-5 the age of the insured was 68 years, whereas this policy was meant for the persons less than 60 years old.  As he did not disclose correct date of birth, so his claim was repudiated. 

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  The appellants were proceeded ex parte before the learned District Forum on 19.05.2014 and 07.07.2014. Thereafter, ex parte evidence was led by the complainant. On the basis of which ex parte order dated 19.09.2014 was passed.  Appellants have not filed any application requesting to set aside the ex parte proceedings and ex parte award for want of proper service and remand the case for affording an opportunity to them to lead the evidence.  It is simply requested that impugned order be set aside or in the alternative the case be remanded back, but, on what grounds is not mentioned.  When the ex parte proceedings are standing against the appellants they cannot ask to go through the annexure A-5 because they cannot led any evidence unless the ex parte proceedings are set aside. The appellants can challenge the impugned order only on the basis of the evidence, which is on the file of the District Forum. There is no evidence on the file of District Forum showing that DLA was more than 60 years old at the time of obtaining insurance policy.  When there is no evidence to this effect, it cannot be presumed that DLA obtained the insurance policy by concealing any fact. Had there been any evidence qua this fact and learned District Forum had ignored the same then it could have a different matter.  The impugned order is well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

March 16th, 2016        Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.