MANJULABEN V PARMAR Vs. L I C OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Facts leading to this appeal, against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, at Ahmedabad, are that Vithaldas C. Parmar of Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as the assured) had taken a life insurance policy from Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short the Corporation), which has the monopoly of life insurance business in India under the provisions of Life Insurance Corproation Act, 1956, under the Jeevan Mitra Plan. The said policy commenced from January 16,1986. Under the terms of the policy, twice the amount of the sum for which the policy was taken was payable in the event of the death of the assured. In the present case the assured thed on December 4, 1986 i.e., within nine months and twenty days after taking the policy. Thereafter Appellant No. 1, Manjulaben v. Parmar, widow of the assured (hereinafter also referred to as 'the widow") lodged a claim under the policy with the Corporation (i.e. with Respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, which is the branch office of the Corporation at Rajkot). The Corporation vide their letter dated 23rd/25th March, 1987 repudiated the claim on the ground that the deceased had not disclosed the material/ correct information regarding his health against question Nos. 18,20 and 24 in the proposal form and that the answers given were false as they (i.e. Corporation) were having indisputable proof that for about two years before the proposal, the assured had suffered from chest pain and cough for which he had consulted medical man and had taken treatment.

(2.) The aforementioned widow made a representation dated September 4,1987 to the Corporation but the same was rejected by the then Assistant Secretary vide letter dated March 8,1988. The widow thereafter approached present appellant No. 2 Consumer Education and Research Society (for short CERS), which is a registered voluntary Association entitled to join as complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The CERS wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Corporation on October 19,1988 pointing out that there was no concealment of any material information and that the medical examination conducted by the approved doctor of the Corporation did not find any active ailment of the heart of the assured. However, the CERS also failed to get any relief for the widow. Thereupon the widow and CERS filed the complaint before the State Commission. The Branch Office and the Head Office of the Corporation were arrayed as respondents in the complaint.

(3.) In the complaint the complainants prayed for an order directing the opposite party to make a payment of Rs. 40,000/- being the amount payable under the terms of the Insurance Policy together with interest at 18 per cent per annum plus Rs. 2 lacs as exemplary damages for the deprivation and humiliation suffered by the widow and her family on account of gross negligence, inhumane and reckless conduct of the opposite party and its officers for a long period of three years. Award of Rs. 5,000/- as costs for the widow and Rs. 10,000/- as costs for CERS was also prayed for.