K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The opposite parties in C.O.P.No.67/2004 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, are the appellants herein. The case of the complainant was as follows:- (a) Her husband one Poolidurai Pandian had taken a life insurance policy for Rs.1,00,000/- on 15/12/2000. Half-yearly premium payable was Rs.4,020/-. He had paid the premium due for the month of June 2001 on 03/07/2001. The premium due for December 2001 was paid by him on 26/12/2001, the next premium payable in June 2002 was paid by him on 16/10/2002 with late fee. He died on 20/10/2002. The complainant as nominee of her husband approached the opposite parties claiming the amount due under the policy. By letter dt.24/01/2004 the opposite party repudiated the liability on the ground that the policy was not in force on the date of death of the insured. The policy was in force at the time the insured died. The repudiation was improper. The complainant caused a lawyer notice to be sent on 15/04/2004 for which there was no response. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.
(2.) The 1st opposite party filed a version which was adopted by the 2nd opposite party. The policy was an endowment policy with profits and accident benefits. After the premium payment on 26/12/2001, the insured did not pay any further premium. The insured died on 13/10/2002 and not on 20/10/2002. There was an investigation done. It was found that the life assured was suffering from acute tuberculosis even before the date of commencement of the policy that he was only an agriculturist and that he died due to tuberculosis on 13/10/2002. The policy had been taken with a view to defraud the opposite parties suppressing material facts. The claimant with the connivance of the agent with intention to defraud the opposite parties had paid the premium on 16/10/2002 knowing fully well that the policy holder died on 13/10/2002, the policy stood lapsed. It was evident from the claim form submitted by the claimant on 25/07/2003 and the letters of N.Gurusamy and Sangaiah of Chennikulam that the policy holder died on 13/10/2002. Further, the claimant had given a letter to opposite party No.2 along with the claim form to refund the premium amount which was paid after the date of death of the policy holder. Only after scrutiny of all the relevant papers, opposite party No.1 had repudiated the claim as the policy taken by the deceased was in a lapsed condition on the date of his death. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) Before the District Forum, on the side of the complainant Exs.A1 to A5 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.;