DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The brief facts are that the petitioner/complainant, Shri Hashmukhbhai Ishwarlal Patel and his wife took joint life insurance policy, named, Jeevan Sathi, (Double Cover Joint Life Plan) with profits and Accident benefits for the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under plan 89-30. It was commenced from 15.12.2005. The yearly premium was fixed for an amount of Rs.5747/-. Under this plan, the husband is the principal life assured (P.L.A.) and wife was spouse life assured (SLA). The wife of the complainant has committed suicide on 16.1.2008. The incident was informed to the OP on 17.3.2008. The complainant filed a claim before the OP alongwith relevant documents and police report. On 17.06.2009, the OP informed that the policy holder is entitled for the amount which he has paid by way of premium and the said policy was closed. It was alleged that the OP without obtaining consent from the complainant closed the policy. The claim was rejected on the ground that the policy holder has committed suicide before completing three years. Therefore, aggrieved by the repudiation, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Gandhinagar for the alleged deficiency of service from the OP. 2. The OP contested the complaint, filed written version and contended that claim in question falls under clause 4-B of the policy, therefore, the insurance Company is not liable to allow the claim. After considering pleas and evidence of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on 13.04.2010. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the complainant preferred first appeal before the State Commission. It was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2011. Hence, this revision petition arose. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the insurance policy was a joint policy. The fora below have not appreciated the documentary evidence on behalf of the complainant. As per policy condition no. 6 (Suicide), the policy shall be void if Life Assured commits suicide (whether sane or insane) at any time on or after the date on which the risk under the Policy has commenced but before expiry of one year from the date of this policy. In the instant case, the wife of the policy holder committed suicide after two years and within three years. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled for the claim. The said policy was joint life insurance policy. The counsel submitted that except proposal form, the complainant has not signed any other document. It is further submitted that OP neither supplied Clause 4-B nor the complainant signed the consent for Clause 4-B. Also, as per the policy condition, if any unfortunate event of any one of the partners has occurred, the entire policy amount (sum assured) will be paid to the survivor and the survived partner can continue the policy but without any information or any reason, OP closed down the said policy. Thus, it was the deficiency on the part of OP. 5. We have perused the insurance policy and its terms and conditions, which is on file. The OP has also produced a format of consent “Consent for Clause 4 (b). The format reads : “It is hereby declared and agreed that in the event of my death the Life Assured accuring as a result of intentional self injury, Suicide or Attempted suicide Insanity accident other than an accident in a public place or murder at any time on or after the date on which the policy has commenced but before the expiry of three years from the date of this policy, the Corporation’s liability shall be limited to the equal to the total amount of premium (exclusive of extra premiums if any), paid under this policy without interest. Provided that in case the life assured shall commit suicide before the expiry of one year reckoned from the date of this policy, the provisions of the clause under heading Suicide printed on the back of policy, shall apply. I agree to the above terms and conditions for the policy.” It is pertinent to note that in the policy document at the end of first page, it is noted as handwritten “ – Cl. 4(b) –“ We do not find any cogent explanation why OP wrote this Clause 4(b) in the policy document. It appears that as a routine, the OP mentioned it. It appears that nothing was clarified to the insured person about Clause 4(b). It is also important to note that there is no consent taken from the complainant under the format “Consent for 4(b). The OP failed to prove that they have explained and took consent for Clause 4(b) from the insured. 6. In this context, we have perused the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred as ‘IRDA Regulations 2002’). As per Regulation 6(1)(l), it was mandatory for OP to clearly state the clauses or conditions but the OP failed to do so in the instant case. 7. The counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of P. Dilip Kumar vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India ILR 2014 Karnataka 1963, 2014(1)KCCR449 in which it has been observed in paras 24 and 26 as under: “24. In the light of the non-examination of the agent, who convassed for the proposal and the person, who actually explained the contents of the restrictive clause 4B, we are unable to come to the conclusion that it had been explained about the consequence of Clause 4B and that the deceased obtained policy knowing fully well Clause 4B. According to us, withholding a very important witness from the purview of the Court amounts to an adverse inference that could be drawn under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. 26. But the crucial question is that before imposing clause 4B, whether the consent had been really obtained?. The very circular issued by the Zonal office of the LIC at Hyderabad would conclusively prove that it was incumbent upon the authorities to get the consent of the proponent before imposing clause 4B, that too after proper explanation. We have specifically held that the LIC has failed to do so and the important witness has not been examined and thereby best evidence has been withheld.’. 8. In para 31 of the judgment (supra), it was held that the document i.e. Clause 4-B produced by LIC before the trial court, has not been attached to the original policy when it was issued to the insured person. The Court held that: “Exercising to impose clause 4B is different from taking consent of the insurer for such a clause is different. Even otherwise the deceased was a house wife having studied up to 9th Standard only.” 9. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the insurance policy issued by OP was without the consent for Clause 4(b), as stipulated under Regulation 6(1)(I) of IRDA Guidelines. The OP challenged the same on the ground that it was never argued or challenged by the complainant before the State Commission or District Forum. 10. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we feel that the OP had wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. 11. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the fora below and allow the revision petition with the direction that OP 1 shall pay the entire insured amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 18.07.2008 within a month, failing which, the entire amount will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of pronouncement of the order. | 
