Per Shri Narendra Kawde – Hon’ble Member:

1.       This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by the District  Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in Consumer Complaint No.54/2007 on 18/10/2007.  District Forum upholding the contentions of the complainants held that the Appellant/Opponent was deficient in rendering services to the Respondents/original Complainants and allowed the consumer complaint with direction to the Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company to pay an amount of `1,00,000/- together with interest @18% per annum effective from 6<sup>th</sup> June, 2005 till its realization and  also further directed to pay an amount of `10,000/- for mental agony and `5,000/- towards costs of litigation.  All these amounts were directed to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of impugned order, failing which penal interest @12% was directed to be paid.  Aggrieved thereby the Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that there was no concluded contract between the late insured and the Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company.

2.       Heard Mr.R.D. Motkari, Advocate for the Appellant.  However, Respondents and their Advocate preferred to remain absent.  This matter pertains to year 2007, therefore, we proceed to hear and dispose of this appeal. 

3.       Admittedly, Shri Manohar Patil, husband of the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and father of Respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 subscribed to insurance policy on 01.05.2005, by submitting proposal form together with amount of `10,550/- on account of first insurance premium.  Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company processed the proposal form and assigned Policy bearing No.9118328.  However, Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company after assigning policy number wanted to record height and weight of the Insured which was already furnished in person to the Agent of Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company.  Letter requesting for height and weight was later on issued by the Opponent Insurance Company which came to be received by the Complainants on 10.06.2005.  However, life assured Shri Manohar Patil unfortunately expired on 06.06.2005 prior to receipt of the said letter.  Complainants filed insurance claim to the extent of sum insured of `1,00,000/- which was repudiated by the Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company on the ground that there was no concluded contract between the life assured and the Insurance Company.

4.       It is the contention of the Insurance Company that they have cancelled the proposal of the life assured for want of submission of the required information, therefore, the contract between the parties was not concluded.

5.       Bare perusal of the record shows that the proposal together with cheque on account of first premium was tendered by the life assured.  Said proposal of insurance was processed and underwritten and also policy bearing No.9118328 was assigned to the said proposal.  Cheque was encashed on account of first premium of the policy by the Insurance Company.  Upon cancellation of the proposal the amount of `10,550/- was refunded by cheque no.96537 to the Complainants  later on.  However, the Complainants have not encashed the said cheque as yet.  The repudiation letter dated 29^th December, 2005 issued by the Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company referred to the Policy No.9118328 on the life of late Mr.Manohar Patil (deceased) addressed to the Complainant No.1 i.e. wife of late Mr.Manohar Patil.  The Complainants relied on judgement of Hon’ble High Court, reported in II(2007) ACC (DB) OMANA PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR V/S. LIC OF INDIA.   It was held that on receipt of the proposal and amount of first premium on account of insurance policy the contract between the parties is complete.  In the case on hand, the proposal was underwritten and processed, policy was assigned to the proposal after accepting the first premium on account of policy.  Therefore, the Ld.District Forum has rightly accepted the contention of the Complainants relying on the judgement and orders of the Hon’ble High Court.  As against this, the Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of S.R. Kharidia & Ors. V/s. Max. New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2009 Gujarat 57.  The judgement and ratio relied upon by the Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company  is not applicable to the case on hand as in that case the proposal of insurance was not underwritten and Policy number was not assigned. 

6.       In view of aforesaid observations, we hold that appeal has no merit and filed only to protract and prolong the payable legitimate claim.  The impugned order cannot be faulted with and therefore, we cannot take different view than what has been taken by the District Forum. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

Appeal stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Pronounced on 31^st January, 2013.