JAGDEEP KUMAR Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
LAWS(RAJCDRC)-2006-3-1
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 21,2006

JAGDEEP KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE aforesaid two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them common questions of law and facts are involved and further, they have been preferred against the order dated 24.4.1997 passed by the learned District Forum, Sri Ganganagar in complaint case No. 601/96.
(2.)THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant -complainant against the order dated 24.4.1997 passed by the learned District Forum, Sri Ganganagar in case No. 601/96 by which the complaint filed by the complainant -appellant under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was partially allowed in the manner that the respondent -Life Insurance Corporation of India was directed to refund the entire amount, which was paid by the insured (deceased Ramnarain) as premium of policy, to the complainant -appellant along with cost of Rs. 300.
(3.)THE necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : On 21.9.1996, the complainant -appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that his father -Ramnarain (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was Physical Training Instructor in the Government Senior Higher Secondary School, Chunawadh, District Sri Ganganagar and deceased had taken insurance policy bearing No. 191953364 from the respondent -LIC on 28.1.1988 for Rs. 20,000 and the monthly premium of that policy was Rs. 143.30 and the same was being paid by deceased regularly through salary. It was further stated in the complaint that deceased had died on 26.5.1990. It was further stated in the complaint that after the death of deceased, the complainant -appellant being son and nominee of the deceased preferred a claim before the respondent -LIC and upon this, some information was sought by the respondent LIC and the same was given by the complainant -appellant to the respondent -Lie and when the payment was not made by. the respondent -LIC, the complainant appellant approached the authorities of the respondent -LIC for settlement of the claim of the policy, but the authorities of respondent -LIC were found reluctant in indemnifying the claim and, thereafter, when no payment was made by the respondent -LIC in respect of policy of deceased, the present complaint was filed by the complainant -appellant. A reply was filed by the respondent -LIC and its case was that first the claim of the complainant -appellant was time -barred and furthermore, since the deceased was addicted to alcohol as a result of which he suffered from the disease of jaundice and since this fact was suppressed by the deceased at the time of filling in up the declaration form, therefore, complainant -appellant was not entitled to any amount under the policy in question of deceased and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum, Sri Ganganagar passed the impugned order dated 24.4.1997 in the manner as indicated above. The learned District Forum came to the conclusion that deceased had obtained the policy in question from the respondent -LIC by concealing and suppressing material facts as he had not mentioned in the declaration form that he was suffering from the diseases of liver and jaundice and he was addicted to alcohol and therefore, complainant -appellant was not entitled to the entire benefits of policy in question of deceased, but learned District Forum through impugned order directed the respondent -LIC to refund to the complainant -appellant the entire amount paid by deceased as premium of the policy in question along with cost of Rs. 300. Aggrieved from the said order dated 24.4.1997 passed by the learned District Forum, Sri Ganganagar, this appeal has been filed by the complainant -appellant.
In this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant -complainant is that in the present case, the death of deceased had taken place after two years of issuance of policy and, furthermore, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the drinking of alcohol by deceased was material fact as at the time of filling in up the declaration form, deceased was not suffering from any disease and if at the time of filling in up the declaration form, deceased would have been suffering from any disease of liver, then this would have been material one and, thus, later on, if the deceased had died because of disease of cirrhosis, it would not amount to suppression of material facts by the deceased. Hence, the findings of the learned District Forum that deceased was guilty of suppression of material facts are wholly erroneous, perverse and illegal one and therefore, the same cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant -complainant is entitled to the entire benefits of policy in question of deceased along with interest.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.