- (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, PresidentThis appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 1.5.2002 in Complaint No. 344/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the District Forum for short) directing the opposite party/appellant herein to pay to the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 1 lac with interest thereon, under the Life Insurance Policy obtained by the husband of the complainant/respondent.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that complainant/respondent is the wife and nominee of the insured Manglu Chhatri. Insured Manglu Chhatri was employed as peon in Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, and had obtained two life insurance policies, one bearing No. 381229779 for Rs. 50,000/ - on 15.9.1992 and the other bearing No. 380083799 for Rs. 1 lac for the period from 15.9.1994 to 15.9.2009.
(3.) THE averments in the complaint were that though the appellant/LIC made payment of Rs. 50,000/ - the assured sum under policy No. 381229779 but has chosen to repudiate the claim of the complainant nominee relating to policy No. 380083799 for Rs. 1 lac. It was averred by the complainant that repudiation of her claim under the second policy was not justified. The complainant, therefore, prayed that sum of Rs. 1 lac assured under policy No. 380083799 be directed to be paid to her with interest and compensation for deficiency in service by the appellant/insurer be also directed to be paid to her. The complaint was resisted by the appellant insurer. It was averred that the insured suffered from the disease of sickle cell from before submission of the proposal form. However, he has suppressed the disease as above in the proposal form. It was also averred that though the insured stated in the proposal form that he was in service of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University from 23.5.1993 but in fact the insured was employed by the University on 23.5.1994. It was averred that, had the correct information as regards the date of employment been given to the appellant insurer Corporation, it would not have accepted the proposal of the insured under non -medical scheme and medical check -up of the complainant would have been conducted and taken into consideration, before covering the risk of the life of the insured.;