PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL)

          Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in First Appeal No. 898 of 2010.  Appeal before the State Commission was filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 09.4.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

-2-

Hisar, by which the complaint was accepted and following directions were given to the Insurance Company:

         “Hence, we allow this complaint and direct the respondents to reimburse the remaining amount of the claim i.e. Rs. 8,10,000/-, Rs. 4,80,000/- = 3,30,000 to the complainant and further to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.  Order of this forum be complied within two months.  If respondents fail to comply the order within stipulated period, then respondents will also pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount from filing the present complaint till realization.”

2.       In the appeal, the Insurance Company pleaded that the life assured had furnished incorrect information / declaration in regard to his age inasmuch as he gave the age as 43 years in the proposal but at the time of the settlement of the claim after the death of the life assured, on inquiry it was found that the age of the life assured was 54 years based on the electoral roll and other cogent evidence obtained in that behalf.  It was pleaded that the premium payable by the life assured depend upon the age of the life assured at the time of making the proposal.  Though the Insurance Policy was in the sum of Rs. 8,10,000/- and annual premium for Rs. 60,000/- was fixed taking into the age of the life assured as 43 years, however, since the actual age of the life assured was 54 years as was evidenced from the cogent material placed on record, the Insurance

-3-

Company deducted a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- towards the balance amount of premium, which would have been payable by the life assured if he had

shown his age correctly i.e. 54 years.  The State Commission going by the material placed on record, therefore, set aside the order of the District Forum, which directed the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,30,000/-.

3.       We have heard Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel representing the petitioner/complainant and have considered his submissions.  He would assail the order passed by the State Commission primarily on the strength of the terms and conditions of the policy, which provided that the kind of insurance taken by the life assured was available to persons between the age group of 2 to 70 years.  In our view, this condition in the policy is only relevant for deciding the eligibility of a person and for no other purpose.  The State Commission, therefore, did well to correct the order of the District Forum, which was passed on incorrect and improper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record, least in consonance with the legal position.

4.       We see no illegality or material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which warrants our interference in this matter.  Dismissed.