A.GNANASOUNDARI Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
K.SAMPATH, J. -
(1.) The complainant in COP No.47/2000 on the file of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore, is the appellant herein. The case of
the complainant was as follows: - Her husband one Arunachalam had taken
two policies on his life from the opposite parties, one for Rs.1 lakh and
the other for Rs.20,000/-. The complainant's husband died on 20/5/1998.
The complainant submitted her claim dated 11/6/1998 for payment of the
amounts due under the policies. The opposite parties accepted the claim
of the complainant with respect to the policy for Rs.20,000/- and issued
a cheque for Rs.38,282/-. They rejected the claim with respect to the
other policy for Rs.1 lakh on the ground that there was suppression of
material fact while the policy was taken. When the Opposite parties have
settled the claim with respect to one policy it was not proper on their
part to refuse to settle the claim with regard to the other policy. In
such circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.
(2.) The Opposite parties took the following stand: - The Assured was
issued a policy with risk commencing from 28/9/93. He died on 29/5/98
within one year and 7 months of the revival of the policy. The claim was
treated as an early claim and statutory investigation was done. It was
found that as per the C.M.C. records the Assured had died due to renal
and congestive heart failure after having been a known case of diabetes
for about 23 years. The life assured having suppressed his past illness
of chronic diabetes mellitus both at the time of proposal and revival by
giving positive answers to the questions contained in the proposal form
and also declaration of good health dated 26/11/96 the opposite parties
had taken a lenient view of the non-early claim as regards another policy
of the life assured and settled that claim. In fact they also took a
further lenient view and decided to refund on exgratia basis the premia
amount received for the revival effected on 26/11/96 and the subsequent
premia received under the policy. There was no deficiency in service.
(3.) On the side of the complainant, Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked while on
the side of the opposite parties Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.