PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.12.2010, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in FA No. 1029/2008, “Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) & Ors. vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors.”, vide which, the order passed by the District Forum, K.G. Marg, New Delhi, dated 07.10.2008, allowing the consumer complaint, filed by the present respondent, was ordered to be modified. 

2.       The facts of the case are that the complainant No. 1/respondent No. 1 Smt. Krishna Devi is the widow and the other two complainants/ respondents are the daughters of the deceased Rajbir Singh, who obtained life insurance policies from the LIC during his life time as per the details given below:-

3.       It is stated that Rajbir Singh was working as a store keeper at some Army establishment at Delhi Cantt. and was getting a monthly salary of ₹7,000/- only.  The deceased policy holder had a family, consisting of his wife Krishna Devi and two daughters namely, Minakshi and Chhavi and a son Amit Kumar.  The complaint has been filed by his wife and two daughters.  It has been stated in the consumer complaint that on 13.11.2003, Rajbir Singh while travelling from Delhi to Barot, District Bagpat (U.P.) where his family was living, was abducted by a group of four miscreants who took him to a forest at Gurana, tied him with rope and attempted to burn him alive by sprinkling kerosene oil on his body and igniting the same.  The complainant suffered deep burn injuries and he was rushed to R.M.L. Hospital at Delhi, but he could not survive and succumbed to his injuries on 19.11.2003.  The post mortem examination conducted on his body by the hospital authorities confirmed that he died of septicaemia due to burn injuries.  The matter was reported by complainant No. 1 to the local police, who registered FIR u/s 302/364/34IPC after the intervention of Sr. Supdt. of Police Baghpat.  It has been further mentioned in the complaint that after completing inquest report, the Police submitted chargesheet in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate against all four accused persons.  The complainant also approached the LIC for obtaining claims under the Policy.  However, the LIC settled claim under one policy only, i.e., Policy No. 121298563 for ₹50,000/- and paid a sum of ₹59,542/-.  However, the LIC refused to pay the claim for the remaining policies on the ground that the deceased had not disclosed the factum of obtaining the first policy while filling the proposal form for obtaining the subsequent policies.  Later on, the claim in respect of the policies No. 252813997 and 252815803 issued by the Meerut office was allowed, after an award was passed in favour of the complainants by the Ombudsman for UP and Uttaranchal State.  For the remaining four policies obtained at Delhi also, the complainant approached the Ombudsman of Delhi, but the case was decided against them by the said Ombudsman.  The present consumer complaint was filed seeking directions to the LIC to pay the insurance amount against the remaining policies plus bonus etc.  The complainants demanded a total sum of ₹16 lakh alongwith interest @24% p.a. and also a sum of ₹2 lakh as accident benefit.  A prayer was also made for payment of ₹1 lakh towards mental agony and ₹11,000/- for litigation cost.

4.       The complaint was resisted by the LIC by filing a written reply before the District Forum in which they contended that the claim had been rightly repudiated on the ground that the deceased had concealed the fact of being on medical leave for two days, i.e., 02.06.2003 and 03.06.2003 at the time of filling the proposal form. Moreover, the deceased did not disclose about the previous policies while filling the proposal forms for obtaining the new policies.  The non-disclosure of such information was a material fact concealed by the deceased and hence, the claim had been rightly rejected. 

5.       The District Forum after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the complaint vide order dated 07.10.2008 and directed the OP LIC to pay a sum of ₹16 lakh plus bonus alongwith interest @24% p.a. and a sum of ₹1 lakh as compensation against mental harassment and ₹10,000/- as litigation cost.  Being aggrieved against the said order, the LIC/OP challenged the same by way of first appeal before the State Commission.  Vide impugned order, the State Commission partly allowed the said appeal and set aside the directions for payment of interest on the amount awarded.  The State Commission also reduced the amount of compensation from ₹1 lakh to ₹10,000/-.  The direction to pay a sum of ₹16 lakh under the policies was, however, kept intact.  It is against this order that the LIC/OP have filed present revision petition before this Commission.

6.       Ld. Counsel for both the parties were heard in detail.  The written arguments filed by the two parties are also placed on record. 

7.       It was contended by the Ld. Counsel for the LIC that the deceased Rajbir Singh had obtained a number of policies from them in quick succession, but while doing so, he did not disclose the fact that he had obtained previous policies also from the LIC.  The death took place on 19.11.2003, i.e., just 5 months after obtaining the said policies.  Moreover, the policy holder died under suspicious circumstances which point towards a probable case of suicide.  The policy holder had also concealed the fact that he had been on medical leave prior to taking-up the policies.  According to the LIC, it was highly improbable that it was a case of murder.  The claim had, therefore, rightly been repudiated by the LIC. 

8.       In reply, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the State Commission had correctly observed in their order that the insured had not died due to any ailment, rather he was abducted and burnt on 13.11.2003, in consequence of which he died at the RML Hospital Delhi on 19.11.2003.  In fact, the insured had taken 2 days medical leave only with the sole purpose of getting medical tests done.  The policy holder was not suffering from any disease and hence, the factum of any concealment of material information did not arise at all.  The Ld. Counsel stated that the LIC had made payment in respect of two policies taken at Meerut, following the directions given by the Ombudsman for the State of UP and Uttaranchal.  There was, therefore, no justification for disallowing the claim under the other four policies as well.  Moreover, all the policies had been taken through one agent of the petitioner only and hence, the factum of non-disclosure of previous policies did not arise at all.  In so far as the stand of the LIC in obtaining the medical report etc. is concerned, the same would not have made any difference because the insured had not been suffering from any disease.  Regarding the capacity of the policy holder to pay the premium in respect of the said policies, the Ld. Counsel stated that the deceased had other income also from agricultural land in addition to the salary from his job.  The present petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

9.       I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

10.     The facts on record make it clear that the OP LIC have already made payment to the complainants in respect of the first policy issued to the deceased by the Delhi Office.  The claim in respect of two policies issued at Meerut has also been allowed, following the decision taken by the Ombudsman for the State of UP and Uttaranchal.  The issue that remains to be settled is with regard to the other four policies issued by the Delhi Office of the LIC. 

11.     In this regard, the main plea taken by the LIC says that the factum of obtaining the previous policies had not been disclosed by the deceased while filling the proposal form for obtaining the subsequent policies.  The complainants have tried to explain that all the policies had been taken through one agent only and hence, the factum of obtaining the previous policy was very much in the knowledge of the LIC.  This contention of the complainants is not without any force, because it was the duty of the LIC to check their own record before taking a decision to issue further policies to an applicant.  It is a matter of common experience that at the time of issuing the policies, the insurance companies take a very liberal approach and do not care to examine the proposals properly.  In any case, the LIC has not controverted the contention of the complainants that all the policies were taken through one agent only.

12.     Now, coming to the contention of the LIC that had they known about the previous policy, they would have subjected the insured to some medical test etc., it is stated that as claimed by the complainants, the policy holder had not been suffering from any disease etc.  From the material available on record also, it has not been shown anywhere that the deceased was suffering from any disease.  There is no question of concealment of any material information about the status of health of the deceased therefore.  Even if he had been subjected to medical examination by the LIC, it would not have made any difference on the outcome of the case.

13.     The LIC has further taken the plea that the deceased policy holder was an employee getting about ₹7,000/- per month as salary only and hence, it was beyond his means to pay the premium under the said policies.  In this regard, the State Commission have rightly brought out in the impugned order that the deceased had income from his agricultural land etc. and hence, the contention of the LIC that he was not in a position to pay the premium etc., was erroneous.

14.     In so far as the claim of the LIC that the death took place under suspicious circumstances, is concerned and probably, he committed suicide etc., it is borne out form record that a case under section 302/364/34 IPC had been registered by the local police on the intervention of the Sr. Supdt. of Police (Baghpat).  Further after the inquest report carried out by the local police, charge-sheet has been filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.  It is made out from these facts, therefore, that it was not a case of suicide and the four accused persons had also been named in the FIR recorded by the Police. 

15.     The Ld. Counsel for the LIC, during his arguments referred to some orders passed by this Commission in Appeal No. 242/2006, “Dineshbhai G. Chandarana vs. LIC of India” decided on 27.07.2010, saying that in the event of non-disclosure of a material fact, the LIC was within their right to repudiate the claim.  In the present case, however, it is not proved anywhere that the policy holder was suffering from any disease and that he had not disclosed any material fact regarding his health condition.  The complainants have been able to explain that the medical leave for 2 days was taken just for getting the medical tests done and not on account of any disease etc.  The Ld. Counsel has also drawn our attention to an order dated 16.07.2012 in RP No. 382/2011, “LIC of India vs. Vidya Devi & Anr.”, in which it was held that the non-disclosure of the previous policies while obtaining fresh policies was fatal towards the admissibility of the claim.  In the present case, however, keeping in view the fact that the claims in respect of two other policies obtained at Meerut have already been paid, there does not seem to be any justification for non-payment of claim under the other four policies in question. 

16.       Based on the discussion above, it is held that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error because the plea taken by the LIC that it was probably a case of suicide has not been proved on record.  Moreover, it is also not stated anywhere that the deceased was suffering from any disease prior to obtaining the said policies.  It is held, therefore, that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.