NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1935/2009

LIC OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. SUVARNA SURYAKANT RANE - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ASHOK KASHYAP

02 Feb 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1935 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 05/02/2009 in Appeal No. 2000/2005 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. LIC OF INDIAThrough Its Assistant Secretary Northern Zonal Office LIC Jeevan Bharti Connaught Circus New Delhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SMT. SUVARNA SURYAKANT RANEW/o Late Suryakant Rane R/o. Raane Chawl Eastern Express. High Way End Opposite Old Jaipur Golden Transport. Thane ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 02 Feb 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Brief facts are that the deceased husband of the respondent obtained two LIC policies from petitioner Corporation for Rs. 50,000/- each which commenced from 10.07.1996 at quarterly payable premium of Rs. 795/- and Rs. 886/-. As both the policies remained unpaid since 10.11.2000, the policies were revived on payment of premium with late fee and other charges. The life assured, however, died on 13.12.2001. The claim lodged by widow of the deceased was repudiated by petitioner Corporation on grounds of suppression of material facts and non-disclosure of them in the proposal form that was submitted by the life assured to the petitioner Corporation at the time of revival of the policy. Dis-satisfied with repudiation of claim, the widow moved the District Forum which accepting complaint directed petitioner Corporation, recording deficiency in service in them, to pay Rs. 50,000/- for each policy along with bonus accrued thereon and also interest @ 9% p.a., compensation of Rs. 5,000/- also awarded by District Forum. The Appeal too preferred by the Petitioner Corporation did not find favour with the State Commission which in absence of tangible evidence suggesting suppression of facts by the life assured, dismissed appeal. The thrust of submissions made on behalf of the petitioner Corporation had been that the life assured died due to heart attack within six months of the revival of the policy and evidences collected during investigation of the claim did suggest that the life assured had taken treatment for Ischemic heart disease in hospital from 19.04.2001 to 04.06.2001 and had this fact been disclosed in the proposal form by the life assured at the time of the revival of the policy, he would have been subjected to further rigorous medical test or even policies would not have been revived. Stretching his argument the submission was that the ailment for which the assured died, had a close proximity with the disease which he suffered preceding revival of policy. The revival of the policy is novation of contract policy and obligation cast on the assured is to disclose material facts which are within his knowledge in the proposal form, are not disputable issues. However, the documents which are placed on record by the petitioner Corporation do not inspire confidence about the life assured having suppressed material facts while submitting his proposal. Exhibit 6, a document of the petitioner authority issued by one Dr. Indoria on 09.03.2002 only shows that the deceased had ischemic heart disease since 2-3 hours on 19.04.2001, but other document issued by Dr. S.V. Nikumbh shows that the deceased had chest pain, heart burn since last 3 or 4 days and this document too was issued on 18.02.2002. The only document issued by Sai Ashutosh Hospital on 04.06.2001 fails to carry any impression about the ailment with which the assured suffered and was admitted in the hospital. Both the fora below in absence of tangible evidence from the record suggesting treatment of the deceased in a hospital for the ailment which he suffered, found repudiation of claim by the insurance company to be invalid and accepted claim of the widow of the deceased. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, we find no good reason for interference in the concurrent finding of the fora below and the revision petition in the circumstances is dismissed but without order as to cost.


......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER