LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, two appeals are being disposed of. Appeal No.56/1997 relates to insurance policy issued for a sum of Rs.50,000/- whereas the other Appeal No.57/1998 relates to insurance policy for a sum of Rs.3 lacs. The District Forum allowed both the complaints relating to recovery of the insured amount vide order dated December 3, 1997 by passing separate orders in the two separate complaints. Direction was given to the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the insured amount alongwith bonus and interest @ 18% p. a. after four months of submitting of the claim till realisation alongwith costs of Rs.1,000/- in each case to the complainant Rajinder Kumar Sharma whose daughter Rachna Sharma during the currency of the insurance policies referred to above had died and the claim made to the Corporation was repudiated. Both the appeals have been filed by Life Insurance Corporation against the complainant Rajinder Kumar Sharma. Main judgment is prepared in Appeal No.56/1997.

(2.) An application was filed by the respondent for dismissal of the appeal as barred by time. Notice of the same was given to the appellant who submitted reply alleging the appeal to be within time as having been filed within the prescribed period from receipt of copy of the order in the office of the Corporation. It was alleged that copy of the order was received in the office of the Corporation on December 22, 1997. The appeal was filed on January 21, 1998. It was further alleged that even if it is assumed that the copy was received in the office of the Corporation on December 19, 1998, January 18, 1998 was a closed day and there was effective delay of only two days in filing the appeal and the delay deserves to be condoned. Certified copy of the impugned order filed alongwith appeal indicates that the same was announced on December 3, 1997 but Despatch Number while sending copies to the parties was dated December 19, 1997. Few days time must have been taken for the certified copy to reach the office of the Corporation which as per endorsement thereon, it was received on December 22, 1997. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that in fact the certified copy was taken by Counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation from the District Forum on December 19, 1997 and it should be deemed that the Corporation came to know of the order on December 19, 1997. A strict view in such matter is not taken to debar the party from seeking relief under the Consumer Protection Act either by the complainant or by the opposite party. The law requires communication of the order to the parties and hence the date of communication is considered as the starting point of limitation for filing the appeal, the prescribed period being 30 days. It was noticed few years ago that for want of postal stamps by the fora inordinate delay was being caused in the matter of communication of the final orders passed by the FORA to the parties. Thus in order to avoid delay on that account, the Commission had issued instructions to the FORA to give certified copies of the final orders passed to Government/semi Government bodies, who are generally represented by Standing Counsel so that parties should come to know about the contents of the order for necessary compliance. The order could be communicated either through post or through a Court massenger and even if Counsel or representative of the opposite party takes such free copy from the FORA, he would normally take a day or two to further submit it to the office. Thus for all practical purposes when office receives copy, the period of limitation of 30 days would commence therefrom as the same date would be taken as communication of the order to the office. The present appeals, therefore, are held to be within limitation and assuming that there was delay of 2/3 days in filing the appeal, in the facts of the present case the same would stand condoned.

(3.) Rachna Sharma, D/o Rajinder Kumar Sharma took two insurance policies from the Life Insurance Corporation on December 31, 1994 for the sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.3 lacs respectively. She died on January 23, 1996 due to Cardio Respiratory Arrest. Her father Rajinder Kumar Sharma, who was named as nominee in the insurance policies made a claim for the insured amount to the Corporation. The matter was got investigated as it was a case of death within a short span of time of taking the policy. On October 23, 1996, the claims were repudiated by the Corporation on the ground that at the time of taking the policies, the insured had concealed material facts relating to her health. She had not disclosed in the proposal Form that she was earlier suffering from Irritable Bowels Syndrome. This led Rajinder Kumar Sharma to approach the District Forum claiming the entire amount. As stated above, the Corporation took up the plea that there was no deficiency in rendering service as after due investigation, the claim was bona fide repudiated on the ground that the insured had concealed material facts relating to her health from the Corporation. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the insured as a young person having good health and had participated in athletics just before taking the policies and secured distinction. It was not expected of the insured to disclose the minor ailment of irritable bowel to the Insurance Corporation at the time of taking the policies. It was further observed that the complainant had joined service with Punjab National Bank and was medically examined and found fit to join the service. She was also medically examined by the doctors of the opposite party at the time of taking the policies. Thus, District Forum held that the repudiation of the claims was arbitrary and not sustainable in law. Hence both the complaints were allowed and directions were given to the Corporation to pay the entire amount as stated above.