Smt.Gurbinder Kaur, complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which she has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make payment of policy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in her favour alongwith interest @18% P.A. from the date of due till its realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss to her alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband Sh.Gurbhej Singh son of Kartar Singh was the holder of the life insurance policy bearing no.473412884 Fvg. Her husband got the policy in September 2012 and paid the premium regularly to the opposite parties and the insured amount of the policy was Rs.2,00,000/-. He died on 7.8.2013 due to heart attack. She has further pleaded that after the death of her husband, she fulfilled all the formalities and requested the opposite party to release the death claim of the policy but they repudiated the claim of the claimant and refused to release the death claim vide letter dated 30.06.2014. The act of rejecting her policy claim is illegal, null and void, unconstitutional, against the law, rules and liable to be quashed.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint was preferred with the prayed relief as herein above.

3.       Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed the written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the deceased life assured Gurbhej Singh was a known drug addict since long and was engaged in the trade of sale of illicit liquor prior to date of the proposal of the policy and the taking of insurance from the opposite parties and at the time of answering the questions of the proposal form but he deliberately and intentionally concealed the material facts and misrepresented the facts regarding his being a drug addict and engaged in the trade of selling illicit liquor with intent to play fraud with the Corporation and to grab the public money. The contract of Insurance is as such null and void and the complaint is prima facie liable to be dismissed. An FIR No.20 dated 22.2.2012 U/S 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was lodged against the said Gurbhej Singh with Police Station, Ghanie Ke Bangar. The Gurbhej Singh was again arrested by the Police of Police Station Ghanie Ke Bangar on the same charges and an FIR No.81 dated 1.10.2012 U/S 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was lodged against the said Gurbhej Singh. The deceased did not disclose these facts to the opposite parties before taking the insurance policy in dispute. The deceased life assured had not stated in the proposal papers this fact that he was a drug addict and was challened by the Police twice for the sale of illicit liquor and as such deceased life assured gave incorrect answer to question No.11 (e) of the proposal form that he has never used alcoholic drinks/Narcotics/Drugs at the time of effecting the insurance on 25.9.2012 and the competent authority had therefore rightly repudiated the liability under the said claim on 30.6.2014. The contract of insurance is a contract of UTMOST GOOD FAITH technically known as “UBERRIMA FIDES” On merits, it was submitted that as per Death Certificate supplied by the complainant to the opposite parties the date of death of the said Gurbhej Singh is 7.8.2013. It was denied that the rejection of the policy claim is illegal, null and void, unconstitutional against the law, rules and liable to be quashed as alleged and the letter dated 30.6.2014 is illegal, null and void and the husband of the complainant was having good sound health as alleged. The repudiation of the claim was done as per the terms and conditions of the policy. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Yogender Singh Sisodia Manager Legal L.IC Amritsar  tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP7, alongwith other documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.      From the pleadings and evidence on record  we find that the OP insurers have satisfactorily proved on record the legality and validity of the impugned ‘Repudiation’ through production of sufficient evidence by way of exhibits Ex.OP1 (repudiation annexing the false information by the DLA); Ex.OP2 (the claim enquiry report divulging incorrect disclosure); Ex.OP3 & Ex.OP4 (the FIRs # 20 & 81of 22.02.2012 & 01.10.2012 against the DLA under the Excise Act); Ex.OP5 (the copy of the Policy in question with ‘voidable’ terms duly printed on reverse); Ex.OP6 (the copy of the related Proposal Form providing false information). On the other hand the documents produced in evidence by the complainant in contest (and defense) Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 has been unable to hold water at the face of the supporting deposition Ex.OP7. Further, the complainant could not produce any ‘source’ of some ‘regular’ income and/ or proof of any Land Holding etc in the name of the DLA (deceased life assured) justifying the purchase of the Policy in question with substantial ‘sum assured’ and that too in the absence of any history of previous policies. Lastly, the ‘early death claim’ accompanied with suspicious and unfavorable investigation justifies the impugned ‘repudiation’ of the insurance claim.     

8.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.          

                  (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                     President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

June 05,2015.                                                               Member               

*MK*