NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1282/2010

LIC OF INDIA & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUKHDEI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. KAMAL MEHTA

23 Apr 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 01 Apr 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1282/2010
(Against the Order dated 30/11/2009 in Appeal No. 805/2007 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. LIC OF INDIA & ORS.Through Senior Divisional Manager, Jivan Prakash, 489, Model TownKarnalHaryana2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAJeevan Jyoti Building, Opposite Parsar Bharti, All India Radio, Subhash Talkier RoadRohtakHaryana3. THE ZONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIANorthern Zonal Office, Jeevan Bharti, Connaught PlaceNew DelhiDelhi ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. SUKHDEIR/o. Vill. Sheikhpur Titri, Post Office MehamRohtakHaryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. KAMAL MEHTA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 23 Apr 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.

          Claim of the nominee respondent was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground of suppression of facts.  Insured had taken the policy on 20.10.2000 and died on 28.4.2003 after 2½ years of the taking of the policy.  Section 45 of the Insurance Act provides that after lapse of 2 years, a policy cannot be repudiated only on the ground that inaccurate or false statement was made in the proposal form.  Claim can be repudiated only if the insurer shows that suppressed facts were material and inaccurate or false statement was made fraudulently which the policyholder knew at the time of making it.  Fraud has to be alleged and proved.  In the present case, the petitioner neither alleged the fraud nor proved the same.  State Commission has held that under the circumstances the petitioner was liable to honour its commitment and pay the insured amount. 

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER