LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. VEENA PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved from the order dated 22.3.2004 passed by the District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala in Consumer Complaint No. 169/2002. By means of impugned order, while allowing the complaint of the respondent, appellants have been directed to pay Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 75,000 with 9% interest from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 31.3.2001 till the payment of said amount to the respondent or is deposited with the Forum. Appellants have also been burdened with costs of Rs. 1,000.

(2.) AT the time of hearing, deceased Rakesh Puri husband of the respondent being the assured life having obtained two policies on 28.7.1997 in the sum of Rs. 50,000 and on 15.2.1999 in the sum of Rs. 75,000 is admitted. He died on 1.6.1999. Because claim of the respondent was not settled by the appellants, therefore, she filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for redressal of her grievance. After conclusion of proceedings in the complaint, above referred relief(s) have been granted to the respondent against the appellants.

(3.) MAIN thrust of the submission of Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants was that both the policies were obtained by the deceased by suppression of true and material facts; and the contract of insurance being based on utmost good faith and bona fide which has become void ab initio, he also invoked the doctrine of uberrima fides. As according to him, when the deceased obtained policies, he was suffering from Adult Polycystic Kidney disease for the last 10 years. In this behalf, he placed reliance on Ex. R.4, Forum No. 3816, issued by the Senior Resident, Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGMIER), Chandigarh as also the leave record of the deceased Exs. R.7 and R.8, besides placing reliance on Exs. R.10, the discharge summary of the deceased issued by Consultant Dr. S.K. Singh. All these pleas were controverted by Mr. Harsh Behl, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. According to him, firstly there was no suppression of any material fact and alternatively without conceding, he urged that even if there was suppression, unless it was shown to be intentional, purposeful as well as fraudulent, then mere suppression by itself is no ground to revoke the claim of his client.