LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. RAJ BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this order is to the order dated 14.7.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat whereby following relief was granted to the respondent -complainant:

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that Inder Singh, husband of the respondent -complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Life Assured) had obtained a Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 172967697 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 on 26.3.2002. Unfortunately, the life assured died on 29.4.2002. The complainant submitted claim to the opposite parties, but her claim was repudiated as an early claim as the life assured had concealed true and material facts with regard to his state of health at the time of proposal form as he was suffering from Generalized Seizure which was not disclosed by the life assured in the proposal form at the time of obtaining policy. The complainant submitted representation against the repudiation of her claim to the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Zonal Manager on 12.7.2003, however, her request was rejected. Under these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.

(3.) UPON notice, the opposite parties resisted the claim of the complainant. In the written statement, they justified the repudiation of complainant s claim and took the plea that the life assured intentionally and deliberately had withheld the correct information regarding his state of health at the time of obtaining Insurance Policy. It was further stated that the Life Assured was suffering from Generalized Seizure which was not disclosed by the deceased in the proposal form at the time of purchasing of the policy. The claim of the complainant was investigated and after investigation it revealed that the life assured Inder Singh was discharged from Military Service under Medical Category BEE (P) i.e. Low Medical Category as he was not fit to serve in Army Service. At the time of submitting proposal form for obtaining the policy in question, the life assured had withheld this vital information on 26.3.2002 malafidely and intentionally and had given wrong answers to the questions. Denying any kind of deficiency of service, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.