1.      Heard the complainant in person.

          Perused the record.

2.      The matter relates to repudiation of claim by an insurance co., apropos which the complainant approached the consumer fora.

3.      The State Commission dismissed the complainant’s consumer complaint case vide its Order dated 14.09.2015. First appeal has been filed by the complainant against the said Order dated 14.09.2015 of the State Commission.

4.      The State Commission’s Order is well–appraised and well– reasoned.

5.      We would like draw attention to the following extracts of the State Commission’s Order:

**mYys[kuh; gS fd iz'uxr chek ikfylh dh chfer /kujkf'k 30 yk[k #i;s gS ftldh okf"kZd fdLr 1 yk[k #i;s gSA 03 vU; ikfylh Hkkjrh ,Dlk ikfylh la0 5007020620 chek /ku 15]17]440@& # dh gSA Hkkjrh ,Dlk ikfylh la0&5007020646 chek /ku 45]62]483 dh gSA bl izdkj iz'uxr chek ikfylh ds fu"iknu ls iwoZ 60 yk[k ls vf/kd chek /kujkf'k dh ikfylh gsrq chek /kkjd us vkosnu dj j[kk FkkA iz'uxr chek ikfylh dh chfer /kujkf'k dks feykdj dqy 90 yk[k #i;s ls vf/kd dh chek ikfylh chek/kkjd n~okjk dkjkbZ x;hA iz'uxr chek ikfylh dh izhfe;e dh /kujkf'k 1 yk[k izzfro’kZ gSA**

**ifjoknh dk ;g dFku gS fd chek /kkjd n~okjk vk;dj vnk fd;k tk jgk Fkk vkSj mldk viuk Loa; dk nw/k dk O;olk; FkkA bl lanHkZ esa ifjoknh us chek /kkjd n~okjk vlslesaV o"kZ 2009&2010 ls lacaf/kr bude VSDl fjVZu] chek ls lacaf/kr izi= izLrqr fd, gSa ftuds voyksdu ls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd o’kZ 2009&2010 esa chek/kkjd dh okf"kZd  vk; 1]76]310@& #0 crk;h x;hA vk;dj dh lhek ds vUrxZr u vkus ds dkj.k dksbZ vk;dj chek/kkjd n~okjk vnk ugha fd;k x;k tcfd o’kZ 2010&2011 esa chek/kkjd us viuh dqy vk; 2]03]820@&#0 crk;h x;h gS rFkk 1480@&#0 vk;dj ds #i esa tek fd;k tkuk nf'kZr gSA chek/kkjd dh tks okf’kZd vk; bu vfHkys[kksa ls nj~f'kr gks jgh gS mlds vkykssd esa chek/kkjd n~okjk yh x;h dqy chek ikfylh ds izhfe;e dh /kujkf'k fdl izdkj vnk dh tkrh] ifjoknh n~okjk Li"V ugha fd;k x;kA ;g rF; भी de egRo dk ugha gS fd iwoZ chek ikfylh Hkh dqN o’kZ iwoZ dh ugha gS] cfYd iz'uxr chek ikfylh ls dqN fnu iwoZ dh ghs gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa gekjs fopkj ls ekeys dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, iwoZ chek ikfylh dh tkudkjh dk RkF; foi{kh chek dEiuh ds fy, iz'uxr chek ikfylh tkjh fd, tkus ls iwoZ lkjoku ekuk tk,xk D;ksafd ;g rF; fuf'pr #i ls iz'uxr chek ikfylh tkjh fd, tkus ds fu.kZ; dks izHkkfor djrkA**

** tgka rd chek/kkfjdk dh e`R;q dk iz'u gSA chek/kkfjdk dh e`R;q ds lafnX/k gksus ds laca/k esa dksbZ izR;{k lk{; vko'; ugha gS fdUrq mYys[kuh; gS fd chek/kkfjdk dh e`R;q rst cq[kkj ls gksuh crk;h x;h gSA mlds mipkj gsrq D;k iz;kl fd;k x;kA bldh dksbZ lk{; ifjoknh n~okjk izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA fpfdRlk gsrq dfFkr iz;kl ds #i esa ifjoknh dk ;g dFku gs fd e`rd dks bykt gsrq MkDVj jkds'k ckcw ds ikl ys tk;k x;k FkkA bl lanZHk esa ifjoknh us MkDVj jkds'k ckcw n~okjk tkjh fd, x, izek.k i= dh izfr izLrqr dh gS] fdUrq bl izek.k i= ds voyksdu ls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd tc chek/kkfjdk dks MkDVj jkds'k ckCkw ¼ch,,e,l½ ds ikl ys tk;k x;k ml le; mldh e`R;w gks pqdh FkhA bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd oLrqr% MkDVj jkds'k ckcw n~okjk e`rd dk dksbZ bykt ugha fd;k x;kA blds ckotwn MkDVj jkds'k ckcw us e`rd ds lanHkZ esa chek dEiuh dks tk fooj.k izLrqr fd;k gS mlesa mUgksusa e`rd dh e`r~;q rst cq[kkj ls gksuk crk;k gSA tc muds n~okjk chek/kkfjdk dk dksbZ bykt gh ugha fd;k x;k rc e`R;q dk dkj.k muds n~okjk rst cq[kkj nf'kZr djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA ifjoknh dk ;g dFku gS fd mldh iRuh chek/kkfjdk dh vPNh vkenuh Fkh vkSj og vk;dj vnk djrh Fkh fdUrq fQj Hkh Ckhek/kkfjdk dks fdlh izfrf"Br vLirky vFkok fdlh izfrf"Br MkDVj ls bykt djkus dk dkbZ iz;kl laHkor% ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd ch0,0,e0,l0 fMdzh/kkjh ,d ,sls MkDVj ds ikl e`rdk dks rc ys tk;k x;k tc mldh e`R;q gks pqdh Fkh rFkk MkDVj Hkh ;g fuf'pr ugha dj ik, fd oLrqr% e`rdk dh e`R;q fdl jksx ls gqbZA chek/kkfjdk dh e`R;q iz'uxr chek ikfylh ds ek= dqN fnu ckn gh gksuh crk;h x;h gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa chek/kkfjdk dh e`R;q Hkh iw.kZr% lkekU; vlafnX/k #i ls gksuk izrhr ugha gks jgk gSA**

6.      The complainant is the husband – nominee of the deceased wife–insured. It has been clearly determined by the State Commission that multiple policies for a total of more than Rs. 90 lakh had been taken on the deceased wife – insured just before her death.  The material fact that other policies had also been taken was hidden from the respondent – insurance co. at the time of taking the subject policy. It is noted that the deceased wife – insured was aged only about 25 years. The death occurred within 14 days of taking the subject insurance policy.  The State Commission has observed that in the circumstances it does not appear evident that the death of the deceased wife–insured was fully normal and unsuspicious. 

7.      In the light of the well–appraised and well–reasoned examination and findings of  in the State Commission, there is no reason visible for allowing this appeal either on any point of fact or on any point of law. 

8.      On the other hand, it is noted that multiple policies were taken and it is reasoned and recorded by the State Commission that it does not appear evident that the death of the deceased wife – insured was not fully normal and unsuspicious.  

9.      It is therefore appropriate and necessary that the facts and circumstances regarding the death of the deceased wife (insured) of the complainant (husband – nominee) be investigated by the police. 

10.    It is further appropriate and necessary that the other insurance companies be informed of the decision of the State Commission in this instant case, for the necessary appropriate action at their end in respect of their policies / claims if any.

11.    The first appeal is dismissed.

12.    A copy of the State Commission’s Order dated 14.09.2015 and  of this Order be sent to the respondent – insurance co. for its information and with the direction that the State Commission’s Order dated 14.09.2015 may be immediately (within two weeks) brought to the notice of the other insurance companies from whom insurance had been taken on the deceased wife – insured, for the necessary appropriate action in respect of their respective policies and claims if any. 

13.    A copy of the State Commission’s Order dated 14.09.2015 and of this Order may be sent to the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, District Agra, Uttar Pradesh where the complainant resides with the request that the facts and circumstances of the death of the deceased wife (insured) of the complainant (husband – nominee) may kindly be investigated by the concerned Police Station as per the law. In case any offence is made out, the necessary appropriate action as per the law may be taken.

14.    So disposed of.