Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2034/2022

Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Sonam - Opp.Party(s)

Amruth AN

18 Oct 2022

ORDER

18/10/2022

ORDER ON ADMISSION

By Sri. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellant preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Commission, Dharwad which directed this appellant to pay amount of Rs.18,76,340/- towards claim made by the nominee of the life assured in the policy obtained by deceased/insured and submits that deceased/ life assured has obtained a policy viz., Bharati Axa Life Income Protection Plan bearing policy No.501-7332395 and paid premium of Rs.15,000/- on 09.05.2018.  After receipt of the policy premium they have issued said policy for the period from 09.05.2018 to 09.05.2038.  Such being the case life assured died on 05.04.2019 leaving this complainant as his sole legal heir and she was nomine to the said policy.  The complainant being nominee claimed for settlement by virtue of policy, but, inspite of several requests OPs have not settled the claim amount.  Subsequently, she got issued legal notice dated 12.01.2022 and called upon OP to settle claim.  Inspite of receipt of legal notice OP has not complied and subsequently, complainant filed complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service and prayed for settlement of assured amount as per the policy issued by OPs. 

2. After admission District Commission issued notice against OPs.  OPs have not appeared before the District Commission to take any defence with respect to the allegations made by complainant and they have placed exparte.  The complainant had filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.C1 to C8.  The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed OPs to pay amount of Rs.18,76,340/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses against which this appellant before this Commission and further submits that notice issued by District Commission after filing complaint was not at all served on them.  They received only notice in the execution petition filed by complainant.  Then only they came to know that award was passed against them to pay above said amount by virtue of policy.  Infact notice was not served upon them and complainant is not entitled to get any claim under the policy as there is discrepancy in the identification of the person who has obtained the policy.  Photos reflected in Adhar Card and PAN card varies.  Deceased/ life assured has not provided KYC to the appellant and obtained policy.  Moreover, they have tampered KYC and mis-representation was made.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim.  Thus, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
3. On going through the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and order sheet in E.P.19/2022 produced before this Commission we noticed that cause title in the complaint and cause title in the execution is one and the same.  After admission of the complaint bearing C.C.No.30/2022, the District Commission issued a notice on this appellant for appearance and take defence.  In the order it was noticed that District Commission placed OP exparte as the notice against this OP was served.  Whereas in the memorandum of appeal, OP had simply stated notice was not at all served on them after admission.  They admitted notice in execution was served on them and then only they came to know about the order passed against them.  The District Commission usually not place OP as exparte if notice was not served.  It is only when the notice was served the District Commission has to proceed to place exparte when there is no representation on the date of appearance.  Hence, grounds urged for non-appearance are not satisfactory.  Mere stating that notice was not served on them is not sufficient cause to set aside exparte order passed by District Commission.  Furthermore we noticed that the District Commission after considering the documents produced by complainant has directed this appellant to pay assured amount by virtue of the policy.  The photos of the life assured in the proposal form, PAN Card and Adhar card are resembling with each other.  The person who had obtained policy is one and the same.  We found there is no tampering of the KYC as submitted by the Learned Advocate for appellant.  Hence, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by complainant.  Furthermore there is 99 days delay in filing appeal and the reasons sworn for condonation of delay are not satisfactory.  As such, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
4. Amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the District Commission to be payable to the complainant.

                   Member                          Judicial Member