KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO: 461/2010
JUDGMENT DATED: 06-04-2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Nagapadam, Kottayam.
: APPELLANTS
2. Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Branch Office,
Punthala Tourist Home Complex, Adoor.
(By Adv.Sri.G.S.Kalkura)
Vs.
1. Shiny Abraham,
W/o late Abraham Yohanan,
Pallathu Puthen Veedu, Karuvatta,
Adoor Tluk, Peringanadu Village.
2. Priyanka Abraham,
D/o late Abraham Yohanan,
Pallathu Puthen Veedu, Karuvatta,
Adoor Tluk, Peringanadu Village.
3. Prince Gandhi Abraham, : RESPONDENTS
D/o late Abraham Yohanan,
Pallathu Puthen Veedu, Karuvatta,
Adoor Tluk, Peringanadu Village.
4. Sneha Mariyam Abraham,
D/o late Abraham Yohanan,
Pallathu Puthen Veedu, Karuvatta,
Adoor Tluk, Peringanadu Village.
(By Adv. Sri.Jagadeeshkumar)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties/LIC of India in CC.24/09 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellants are under orders to pay the assured sum of Rs.1.lakh with interest at 8% from the date of filing of the complaint and also cost of Rs.2500/- to the complainant who are the LRs of assured.
2. It is the case of the complainants that the deceased/husband of the 1st complainant had availed an LIC policy from the opposite party from 3/10/2007 and paid the premium of Rs.8498/-. While working in Sultanate of Oman he died on 25-03-2008 due to heart attack. Claim has been repudiated on the ground of suppression of material facts.
3. The opposite parties have alleged that the deceased deliberately withheld details with respect to his health in the proposal and did not disclose that he was undergoing treatment for diabetes from 4/12/1997 and was taking drugs including insulin. The assured died after 5 months and 22 days of taking the policy. The insurance contracts are based on good faith. The opposite parties are entitled to repudiate the claim.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A3 and B1.
5. The appellant has stressed the statement of the doctor in Ext.B1 certificate that the deceased was on medication for diabetes. It is mentioned that he was on insulin, diet control and regular exercise. It is also mentioned that he was already diabetic when he attended the clinic first on 4/12/1997. His last check up was on 18/11/1997. It is mentioned therein that except for slightly elevated blood sugar the rest are within normal limits. It is also point out that PW1, the wife of the complainant has admitted that her husband was having diabetes at the time of availing the policy. In the circumstances we find that the contention of the counsel that the complainant/respondent that the deceased died of heart attack and the same has no nexus with diabetes is devoid of merits. The law on the point has been made clear by Supreme Court in P.J.Chacko and Another Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others AIR 2008 (SC) 424.
6. We find that the premium paid ie 8419/- in 2007 has been forfeited by the opposite parties. The deceased was aged 52 years. The deceased is survived by 3 minor children and wife. In the circumstances we direct the opposite parties/appellant to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant on compassionate grounds. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is modified as follows:-
7. The appellants/opposite party would pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainants. The direction to pay interest and cost is set aside. The amounts shall be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainants would be entitled for interest at 12% from 6/4/2011, the date of this order.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above.
Office will forward the LCR along with copy of this judgment to the Forum.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VL.
