Decided on February 01,2021

Rekha Jain Respondents


C.Viswanath,J. - (1.) Above-Mentioned six Revision Petitions have been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party against the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission") dated 24.06.2020 in First Appeal Nos.24 to 29 of 2020.
(2.) Facts of the case are that the Complainant/Respondent is the mother of the insured/deceased Rahul Jain, who took seven Insurance Policies bearing Nos.126175119, 126182682, 126182683, 127325623, 127325624, 127325625 and 127325638. Complainant was the nominee in all the Policies. Insured expired on 10.06.2014 and the Complainant filed Insurance claim before the Petitioner/Opposite Party. Insurance claim against Policy No.126175119 was honoured by the Petitioner, but the claim against rest six Insurance Policies was not paid. Complainant also made a representation for payment, but she did not receive any reply from the Opposite Party. Claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners/Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed six separate Consumer Complaints before the District Forum, making similar prayer in all the Complaints. Prayer in Complaint No.33/2017 (taking it as leading case herein) reads as follows:- "A. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Forum may kindly be pleased to take action against the respondents under the provisions of the consumer protection act, and the respondents may kindly be summoned, tried and punished in accordance of the laws for the offence committed by him in the interest of justice. B. Pass an order/award for recovery/payment of claim of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) for the insurance policy No.126182682 alongwith interest @ 24% per annum in favour of the complainant and against the respondent till realization. C. It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Forum may be pleased to order to direct the respondents for the payment of the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) for the pain and suffering to the complainant in accordance of the laws. D. Pass an order/award for Rs.50,000/- for legal expenses in favour of the complainant and against the respondents. E. Pass an order/award for cost of the suit in favour of the complainant and against the respondents. F. Pass any other relief/order/award or such other decrees, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the complainant and against the respondents."
(3.) Complaint was contested by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties. It was stated that the insured while filling the proposal form, had supressed the material fact about his health condition. The life assured was having history of Hypothyroid and Diabetes from 2010 to June, 2014 before taking the Policy, for which he had taken treatment in AIIMS, Delhi. Life assured was also suffering from DCMP with EF-21% for 5 years and was on regular treatment from AIIMS, New Delhi from 2010 to June, 2014. The claim of the Complainant was, therefore, repudiated and the same was communicated to the Complainant, vide letter dated 12.03.2015.;

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