Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/65

Anil Kumar Swarnakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. Chakravati

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-19-05-2018

Date of final hearing-01-02-2023

 Date of Order-01-02-2023

Case No. 65/2018

     Anil Kumar Swarnakar, S/o Late Jagarnath Soni,

     R/o Shiv Shakti Colony, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas,

     District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

Vs.

1. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India,

         Hazaribagh Division, Julu Park Holy Cross Road,

         Hazaribagh, Pin-825301

2. The Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Patna, G.P.O. 800001

3. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, bye Pass Road, Chas, district- Bokaro, Jharkhand

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.P. to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as insured amount along with interest and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.
2.  Complainant’s case in brief is that he is son of late Shanti Devi who during her lifetime obtained LIC Policy No. 547306385 on 19.03.2011 for sum assured Rs. 5,00,000/- and paid premium regularly. Further case is that on 23.01.2012 she died due to respiratory failure. Complainant being a son and nominee of the policy applied for claim and submitted all relevant papers but claim was repudiated on the ground that the insured was holding another policy at the time of taking this policy and this fact was not disclosed at the time of obtaining the policy. Inspite of issuance of legal notice matter was not settled hence Consumer Complaint case No. 109/2015 was filed but due to technical reasons it was withdrawn and appeal was preferred before the Zonal Manager on 06.04.2017 but no action was taken hence this case has been filed.
3.  W.S. has been filed by the O.P. mentioning therein that case is time barred and during existence of policy number 547282673 for Rs. 2,00,000/- the policy under question was obtained but insured with fraudulent intention has not disclosed about that very previous policy hence on that ground claim has been repudiated because insured has withheld correct information regarding her previous policy at the time of taking the policy. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
4.  On the basis of pleadings of the parties point for consideration are that :- A. whether repudiation of the claim on the ground of non disclosure of previous policy is justified ?

2. Whether case is time barred ?
3.  whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed ?

5. The fact related to opening of insurance policy no. 547306385 is not in dispute about which present case has been filed. Fact related to death of the insured Shanti Devi is also not in dispute. The capacity of the complainant as nominee of the insured is also not in dispute. It has not been controverted by the complainant that earlier insured had obtained policy No. 547282673 for sum assured Rs. 2,00,000/- and said fact was not disclosed at the time of taking of the policy under question. 
6. In this way in view of above noted admitted facts we have to decide above noted points.
7. Point No. B:- One ground is that claim is time barred. On this aspect it is important to note here that earlier C.C. No. 109/2015 was filed by the complainant on 23.09.2015 for the same casue of action and relief which was later on withdrawn on 06.04.2017. It is important to note here that in c.c. No. 109/2015 order was passed with observation that “we are of a view that there is no need to proceed this proceeding further, because complainant does not want to run this proceeding further, hence this complaint petition disposed off as withdrawn. O/c is directed to keep this record in the record room”. In this way it is apparent that C.C. No. 109/2015 was filed on 23.09.2015 for the claim repudiated vide letter dt. 20.03.2013. Therefore, cause of action for the case arose on 20.03.2013. Withdrawal of C.C. No. 109/2015 has not been allowed with permission to file the case again. This case has been filed on 19.05.2018 and there is no any chit of paper to show that this case has been filed within 2 years from the cause of action in the matter. Order dt. 25.05.2018 passed in this case shows that case has been admitted subject to limitation. Therefore, this point has been taken up for decision in compliance with the order dt. 25.05.2018. In light of above discussion we are of the view that this case is hopelessly time barred.
8. Point No. A & C :- These points are being taken up together for decision for the sake of convenience. Ground for repudiation of the claim is that the deceased withheld correct information regarding her previous policy at the time of affecting the assurance with the O.P. Letter dt. 20.03.2013 is the repudiation letter in which it is mentioned that “the deceased has not mentioned the existence of policy No. 547282673 on her life in the proposal form with a fraudulent intention as because had she mentioned the existence of this policy in the proposal form, the same would not have been accepted for want of requisite educational qualification & various special medical report etc. in the proposal form”.
9. Learned Counsel for the O.P. (LIC) has placed reliance on the decision dt. 16.07.2012 of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi passed in Revision No. 382 & 383/ 2011 in which after placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in IV (2009) CPJ 8 (SC) principle has been laid down on the basis of concealment/ suppression of the fact related to existence of previous policy has been taken as suppression of material fact and on that very ground prayer for claim has been refused. Ld. Counsel for the O.P. has also  placed reliance on the decision dt. 25.01.2017 passed in F.A. No. 455/456 of 2014 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi and also placed reliance on the decision dt. 25.05.2015 passed in Revision Petition No. 4375 of 2014 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi which are also related to similar facts of this case and prayer for payment of claim amount has been refused on the ground related to concealment of existence of previous policy.  Considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi in above noted cases we are of the view that repudiation of claim by the O.P. is based on the principles laid down in above noted cases and there is no deficiency in service. Accordingly both points are being decided against the complainant.
10. In light of above discussion case is dismissed on merit on contest.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

                                                                                               

 

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

•