BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1711/2014
Sri Gavisiddappa, S/o Hanumanthappa Kabbinad, Age : 47 years, Occ : Business, Annapurneshwari Khanawali, Near Court, Gavimath Road, Basaveshwar Circle, Koppal, Now r/at Veerabhadreshwar Trading Co., Gavisiddeshwar Gunj, APMC Yard, Koppal 583 231. (By Sri N.P. Singri) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Near Bus Stand, Koppal 583 231. (Served absent) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.30.07.2013 passed in CC.No.3/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koppal.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant is that complainant’s wife Smt. Jayashree died on 29.10.2011 The deceased has obtained life insurance policies bearing policy No.664924001 dt.28.11.2009 for an assured sum of Rs.50,000/- and another policy No.665626406 dt.14.06.2011 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The husband of the deceased woman made a claim to the OP, but, the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the non-disclosure of the previous policy No.664924001. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission and after trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal. Heard the arguments.
4. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the deceased has obtained two life insurance policies bearing Nos. 664924001 dt.28.11.2009 for an assured sum of Rs.50,000/- and another policy bearing No.665626406 dt.14.06.2011 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OP Company. It is also an admitted fact that after the death of complainant’s wife, he made a claim to the OP for payment. However, the OP on 30.01.2013 settled the claim towards the policy bearing No.664924001 for a sum of Rs.53,877/- and the same has been remitted to the SB account of the complainant. However, the OP repudiated the claim towards policy No.665626406 on the ground that the non-disclosure of the previous policy No.664924001 and also contended that the life assured while taking the first policy has declared the date of birth as 01.05.1982 stating that she has no school certificate for age proof. While taking second policy, she has submitted her school certificate as age proof wherein her date of birth mentioned as 04.10.1971.
5. Perused the order passed by the District Commission. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint perusing Ex.B-3 for non-disclosure of previous policy No.664924001. The appellant has produced some citations along with written arguments. The appellant relied upon the decision reported III (2021) CPJ 158 (NC), III (2014) CPJ 582 (NC), II (2017) CPJ 463 (NC), II (2017) CPJ 497 (NC), I (2018) CPJ 20A (CN) (Raj.) and II (2017) CPJ 109 (T & AP). We relied on the citations and held that the deceased has taken policy from the same insurance company through the same agent. Hence, there is no need to disclose at the time of taking the second policy. The records are already with insurance company about the previous policy. The non-disclosure of previous policy is immaterial. Moreover at the time of taking the policy, all information filled in the proposal form by the insurance company agent.
6. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the non-disclosure of the previous policy of same complainant does not amounts to suppression of material facts. Hence, the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company regarding policy bearing No.665626406 is not justifiable. Moreover, the District Commission has dismissed the complaint only on the ground that the non-disclosure of the previous policy and the insurance company repudiated the claim on the same reason. Hence, the discussion of age proof of the life assured is not necessary. Hence, the following;
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. Subsequently, the complaint is allowed.
OP is directed to pay an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the policy bearing No.665626406 to the complainant along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation, till realization.
Further directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.
The OP is granted 30 days time from this date to comply the said order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
