LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. KRISHNA DEVI
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 134/2008, dated 31.10.2009 whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and the appellants were held liable to pay jointly and severally Rs. 5 lacs, to the latter alongwith all accrued benefits of the policy totalling Rs. 10 lacs within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which this amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its payment. Appellants have also been directed to pay compensation to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ - for causing mental agony and harassment, besides litigation cost of Rs.3000/ -.
(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the record in brief are, that Dharambir Singh husband of the respondent had got himself insured with the appellants vide policy No. 151398075 for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs on 10.12.2004. He died on 18.1.2007 in a fire accident in his house. It was also specifically mentioned in the policy Annexure RW -1 that in case of death of the policy holder, he will be entitled to an additional amount equal to the term insured.
(3.) AFTER the death of the husband of the respondent, she lodged claim being legal heir/widow/nominee. This that was repudiated by the appellants on the ground, that since the policy holder had suppressed material facts in the proposal form regarding his suffering from Chronic Alcohalism and Alcoholic Withdrawal Syndrome and also the medical leave availed by him. He had thus given wrong answers to the specific columns in the proposal form Annexure RW -3, particularly columns 11(K) to 11(G), as such there was deliberate misstatement of facts and withholding of material information by the life assured regarding his state of health. This resulted in filing of the complaint by the respondent. Appellants contested the complaint on the grounds on which the claim was repudiated. Per them the claim was rightly repudiated and there was no deficiency of service on their part.
Summary of evidence led by the parties in nutshell is, that appellants in support of their case have filed affidavit of Vishwanath Manager of the appellants as OP -1, and affidavit of Kanwal Ram Sharma Superintendent of Panchayati Raj Ext. OPW -2, insurance policy RW -1 Claim Form No. 300 Ex. RW -2, medical certificates Ex. RW -3 to RW -6, Form No. 3787 Ext. RW -7, letter addressed to Director Panchayati Raj dated 21.5.2007 by the appellants Ext. RW -8 and Ext. RW -9 letter sent to Smt. Krishan Devi dated 8.8.2007. Respondent in support of her case filed her own affidavit, and relied upon Annexure C -1 Form No. 300, Annexure C -2, C -3 letters of repudiation and death certificate Annexure C -4.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.