KALISETTI DEVI Vs. ZONAL MANAGER SOUTH CENTRAL, ZONAL OFFICE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the order dated 6.8.2007 in C.D.No.37 of 2006 by the District Forum Vizianagaram whereby their complaint was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case as stated in the complaint are that the complainant no.1 is the wife, complainants no.2 to 4 are the minor daughters and complainant no.4 is the mother of deceased late Ramakrishna. The deceased RamakKrishna was in service under Government as attender. The deceased Rama Krishna insured his life under policy bearing No.692681930 and 692680060 since 24.6.2004 by collecting premium of Rs.390/-. The insured died on 25.8.2004 due to jaundice. The complainants being the legal representatives of the deceased submitted a claim application to the opposite parties for payment of the insurance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The opposite parties by letter dated 31.3.2005 repudiated the claim of the complainants on the ground that the deceased Rama Krishna availed leave on sick grounds from 2.5.2004 to 13.7.2004 for Hepatitis and it was not disclosed in the proposal form. Hence the complainants filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainants with interest and costs.

(3.) The opposite party resisted the case contending that the life assured was on sick leave for treatment of Hepatitis as on the date of proposal i.e., 24.6.2004. All the polices were in force as on the date of death of the life assured. The life assured died on 25.8.2004 with a duration of 2m-1d, 1y-7m-27d and 3y-5m-27d respectively from the date of commencement of the polices. Since the first two policies come under early category an inquiry was conducted and opposite parties found that the life assured was sick on the date of proposal. Basing on the evidence opposite parties repudiated the claim on the policy No.6926814930 which was procured during the period of the life assureds sick leave and admitted the other two policies and paid the amounts accordingly. Hence, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.