IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 23rdday of June, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 103/2020Filed on 07-08-2020)
Petitioner : Renjith Mathew Kurian,
S/o. Mathew Kurian,
Plamparampil House,
Pallom P.O. Nattakom Village,
Kottayam – 686007.
(Adv. Akash K.R.)
Vs.
Opposite party : Life Insurance Corporation of
India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Prakash Building,
P.B. No.609, Nagampadam,
Kottayam – 686 001.
Rep. by its Divisional Manager.
(Adv. Annie C. Kuruvilla)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Nutshell of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is the father of late ReenuElzaRenjith whosuccumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor accident. Thesaid ReenuElzaRenjith during her life time insured her lifewith the opposite party wide policy number 396524273.Thecomplainant being the legal heir of the deceased is thebeneficiary of the service availed by late ReenuElzaRenjith . Itis averred in the complaint that after the death of Reenu ElsaRenjith on 18-2-2020 the complainant submitted the claim withthe opposite party.The opposite party vide letter dated 13-3-2020 repudiated the claim stating that the ReenuElzaRenjithhas given false answer to certain material facts and suppressedcertain material facts in the proposal form with an intention tomislead the opposite party. Opposite party refunded Rs. 11,587/- ie premium remitted by the Reenu and the complainant wasforced to accept the same with protest.
It is averred in the complaint that the daughter of thecomplainant has not suppressed any material fact from theopposite party. Said ReenuElzaRenjith succumbed to theinjuries sustained on her head in a motor accident took place on29-11-2019 near Ambalakkar sub-station while she wastravelling behind one Abhila Thomas in a scooter bearingregistration no. KA5-KK-1977. The said accident took placesolely due to the rash and negligence driving of the rider of thescooter and the Thiruvanthapuram City Police had registered acrime against AbhilaThomas ascribe no. 2688/2019.It is submitted in the complaint that the cause of death of theReenuElzaRenjith is the injuries sustained to her in theaccident and nothing else. The question and the answers citedin the repudiation letter dated 13-3-2020 is having no nexus tothe cause of death of the life assured. It is further alleged in thecomplaint that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant isillegal and the opposite party has adopted unfair trade practiceand deceptive practice in rendering service to the complainant.The repudiation of the claim puts the complainant throughmuch loss, mental agony, hardship and loss and he estimates hisdamages to the tune of Rs. One lakh. The act of opposite partyamounts to deficiency in-service. Hence the complaint.
Upon notice opposite party appeared before the Commissionand filed version contending that the complainant is not alonethe beneficiary of the deceased so as to prefer the complaint onaccount of the death of the deceased. It is admitted by theopposite party that the deceased took a policy from the oppositeparty and the date of commencement of the policy was on 15-11-2019 and the sum assured was ten Lakhs under Plan andTerm 836-25. The proposal was accepted without medicalexamination (non medial professional Scheme) as the deceasedhad a professional degree and was employed in a repudiatedFirm like “Ernst and Young”. The mode of payment ofpremium was quarterly with premium of Rs. 11,847 /-. The Lifeassured met with a road traffic accident on 9-11-2019 andexpired on 30-11-2019. Her post-mortem report revealed thatthere was surgical scr 9 cm length on front of lower abdomen.
From the treatment details of the deceased from the MeditrinaHospital Pvt Ltd.Thiruvanthapuram, it understood that she hadundergone left ovarian cycstectomy on 24-10-2019. The historyof the surgery was not disclosed in the proposal form submittedby the deceased which was just 22 days after the surgery.
The discharge summery from the Meditrina hospital revealsthat the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 24-10-2019and had undergone ovarian cystectomy on 24-10-2019 and wasdischarged on 26-10-2019. All these material facts whichare known to the deceased only and a duty was castupon the deceased proposer to disclose the same correctly in theproposal form.It is submitted in the version that as per underwriting rules,there is a waiting period of 3 months for accepting the proposalon the life of a proposer. If the proposer has undergone anysurgery and if the cystectomy were disclosed, completion of the proposal would havebeen postponed for at least three months. Moreover if details ofsurgery were disclosed, the proposal would not have beenaccepted under non-Medical professional scheme and medicalreport from LIC’s Medical examiner would have been called for.
Also hystopathological reports and discharge summery wouldhave been called for and the acceptance of the proposal atnormal premium for such high sum assured for Rs.10 Lakhswould have been reviewed and the proposal would have beendeclined depending on the basis of the pathological reports anddischarge summary. According to the opposite party eventhough the death was due to accident which was not related tothe undisclosed ailment, the disclosure would have led to thepostponement of the proposal of the policy completion ordeclination of the proposal. As such, as on date of death thepolicy would not have been existed.
It is submitted that as per section 45 of the insurance act apolicy may be called in question at any time within 3 yearsfrom the date of insurance of the policy or the date ofcommencement of the risk or date of revival of the policy or daterider of the policy, whichever is later on the ground that anystatement of or date suppression of fact material to theexpectancy of the life of the insured was incorrectly made in theproposal or other document on the basis of which the policywas issued or revived or rider issued. Also in the policycertificate under the title head “ Forfeiture in certain otherevents” it is clearly stated. Hence the claim is repudiated as perthe provisions of the Section 45 of the insurance Act and thepremium collected refunded to the nominee in accordancewith law.
It is submitted that the life assured had wilfully violated the basicprinciple of Uberimmaefidie in the contract of insurance. Thereis no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties inrepudiating the claim of the complainant.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examinationand marked exhibit A1 to A5 from their side. One C.D Georgewho is the manager (L7HPF) of the opposite party filed proofaffidavit and Exhibits B1 to B9 were got marked.
On evaluation of complaint version and evidence on record wewould consider the following points.
- Whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by theopposite party amounts to deficiency in service?
- If so what are the reliefs and Costs?
Point number 1 and 2
Complainant is the father of ReenuElzaRenjith who expired on 30-11-2019 due to the injuries sustained on road trafficaccident. Exhibit A1 is the death certificate issued bytheThiruvanthpuram Corporation. Admittedly the said late ReenuElzaRenjith availed a life insurance policy from the oppositeparty vide exhibit B2. Exhibit A2 which is the certificateissued by the Tahazildar Kottayam proves that the deceasedhave no other legal heirs than the complainant. Moreover thename of the complainant was incorporated in exhibit B2certificate of insurance as the nominee of the life assured.
“Consumer” is defined under Section 2(7) of the consumerprotection Act 2019 as a person who “buys any goods for aconsideration which has been paid or promised or partly paidand partly promised, or under any system of deferred paymentand includes any user of such goods other than the person whobuys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partlypaid or partly promised, or under any system of deferredpayment, when such use is made with the approval of suchperson, but does not include a person who obtains such goods
for resale or for any commercial purpose” or “hires or avails ofany service for a consideration which has been paid or promisedor partly paid and partly promised, or under any system ofdeferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such serviceother than the person who hires or avails of the services forconsideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partlypromised, or under any system of deferred payment, when suchservices are availed of with the approval of the first mentionedperson, but does not include a person who avails of such servicefor any commercial purpose.”
Section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads asunder:
“(5) “complainant” means—
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under any law
for the time being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or
(iv) the Central Authority; or
(v) one or more consumers, where there are numerousconsumers having the same interest; or
(vi) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or legalrepresentative; or
(vii) in case of a consumer being a minor, his parent or legalguardian;
As discussed above the deceased was consumer of the oppositeby availing the service of the opposite party for the insurance ofher life. The name of the complainant was incorporated as thenominee in the insurance certificate he is the only legal heir ofthe deceased life assured. Hence being the beneficiary of theservice availed by his daughter and the legal heir thecomplainant is entitled to file this complaint.
As discussed above the opposite party admitted the issuance ofthe exhibit B2 policy to the deceased ReenuElzaRenjithandthe sum assured was 10 lakhs. There is no dispute on the factthat the said ReenuElzaRenjithexpired due to the injuriessustained on a road accident. Exhibit A4 is the first informationreport in crime no 2688/2019 in Thiruvanathpuram city policeauthorities. ExhibitA5 is the post-mortem certificate of thedeceasedReenuElzaRenjith. The claim lodged by thecomplainant was rejected by the opposite party vide exhibit A3repudiation letter on the ground that here was suppression ofmaterial facts by the assured. The opposite party refunded thepremium amount of Rs. 11,487/- to the complainant.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by stating thatthe deceased was admitted in the hospital on 24-10-2019 andhad undergone ovarian cystectomy on 24-10-2019 andwasdischarged on 26-10-2019. According to the opposite party thedeceased availed the service of the opposite party bysuppressing the material fact regarding the surgery which waswithin the exclusive knowledge of the deceased assured.
Exhibit B1 is the proposal form filed by the deceased ReenuElzaRenjith on 15-11-2019. On perusal of exhibit B1 we cansee that the queries stated in Colum no 11 to 15 in exhibit s areregarding the health condition of the proposer and the deceasedproposer answered in negative to all the queries about herexisting health conditions and the treatment availed by her.
Exhibit B5 which is the discharge summery of ReenuElzaRenjithfrom Meditrina hospital proves that she had undergonefor cystectomy on 24-10-2019.
According to the opposite party non disclosure of the previoustreatment history in the proposal from is a suppressionmaterials facts and believing solely disclosed facts they issuedthe policy under non medical professional scheme . Accordingto the opposite party if the deceased proposer disclosed the fullfacts regarding the surgery they would postpone thecompletion of the proposal for 3 three months and they wouldnot issue the policy for normal premium for a high sumassured.
The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that as persection 45 of the insurance act a policy may be called inquestion at any time within 3 years of date of issuance of the policyor the date of commencement of risk on the ground that anystatement or suppression of merials fact to the expectancyof life of the insured was incorrectly made in the proposalform or the document on the basis of which the policy wasissued.
The learned counsel for the opposite party relied on decisions ofhon’ble supreme court in Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs New IndiaAssurance company ltd , Life Insurance corporation of India vs G.MChannabasemma(1991 KHC 885), Life Insurancecorporation of India vs Manish Gupta (2019KHC6501) and thedecisions of NDRC Life Insurance Corporation Of India andothers Vs. Maya Devi (revision petition 1327 of 2008), LifeInsurance Corporation Of India vsRajvilasDongre and another( decided on 3-3-2020) and Branch manager Life InsuranceCorporation Of India. vs DR. Abhoy Banerjee ( decided on 13-3-2020).
In Satwant Kaur Sandhu V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( IV(2009)CPJ 8 (SC) wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court held asunder:
“17. The term“material fact” is not defined in the Act and,therefore, it determining understood and explained by the Courtsin general terms to mean as any fact which would influence thejudgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or whetherhe would like to accept the risk. Any fact which goes to the rootof the Contract of Insurance and has a bearing on the riskinvolved would be “material”.
Proposal Form “means a form to be filled in by the proposer forinsurance determine the rates, terms and conditions of a cover tobe granted a risk, in order to enable the insurer to decidewhether to accept or decline to undertake the risk, and in theevent of acceptance of the risk, for furnishing all materialinformation required by the insurer in respect”
In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Manish Gupta(2019KHC 6501) hon’ble supreme court has held that the failure ofthe insured to disclose the past history of Cardiovascular diseasewas a valid ground for repudiation.
In Life Insurance corporation of India vsG.M..Channabasemma(1991 KHC 885) Hon’ble supreme court hasheld that contract of insurance is contract of unberrimae fidesand the assured is under solemn obligation to make fulldisclosure of material facts which may be relevant for theinsurer to take into account while deciding whether the proposalshould be accepted or not.
NCDRC has held in Life Insurance Corporation Of India andothers vs Maya Devi (revision petition 1327 of 2008), that itwas not the insured to decide whether the information sought forin the questionnaire was material for the purpose of the policy inquestion.
In Life Insurance Corporation Of India vsRajvilasDongre andanother (decided on 3-3-2020) NCDRC has observed that thecontract of insurance is based on utmost good faith and it isabsolutely essential for the deceased to make correct statements.
In Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation Of India. VsDR. Abhoy Banerjee ( decided on 13-3-2020).NCDRC hasrelied on the decision of the hon’ble supreme court in Lifeinsurance vs Asha Goel III(2008) CPJ 78SC in which it washeld that “the contract of insurance including the contract of lifeinsurance are contracts uberrima fides and every fact of materialmust be disclosed , otherwise , there is good ground forrescission of the contract. The duty to disclose material factscontinues up to the conclusion of the contract and also impliesany material alternation in the character of the risk which may take place between the proposal and its acceptance”
Counsel for the complainant relied on the decisions of Hon’bleNCDRC in LIC Of India vsMamtaSipani ( decided on 2-3-2022), Ratanavs Life Insurance Corporation Of India and twoothers (decided on 7-11-2019), SBI Life Insurance Co. LTD vsLaksmibenNagibhaiChuhan and others (decided on 4-11-2019) and Authorized Signatory , Bajaj alinz Life Insurance co.Ltd vsKandruGangadhara Rao (decided on 7-10-2021)anddecision of Panjab and Hariyana high Court in Sunil Kumar&others vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India ( 2016 ICO2119).
In Ratanavs Life Insurance Corporation Of India and twoothers (decided on 7-11-2019), Hon’bleCommission allowed theappeal filed by the complainant on the ground that the insuredwas examined by the doctors at the time of issuanceof the policies and admittedly the doctor found him physicallyfit and not suffering with any disease on the date when thepolicies were issued.
In Sunil Kumarothers vs Life Insurance Corporation OfIndia ( 2016 ICO 2119). Punjab and Hariyana high courtrelaying on its earlier decision had held that mere inaccurateanswers of questionnaires in the proposal form for medical, gotECG conducted for medical check-up or mental depressionor anxiety does not mean the insured was suffering from heartdisease and is no ground to repudiate the policy after of theinsured . Non-Disclosure of getting ECG conducted prior toinsurance does not amount to concealment of material factsespecially when the medical report of the doctor got by the LICshows that the deceased was healthy and did not suffer fromany disease.
In Authorized Signatory , Bajaj alinzLife Insurance co .Ltd vsKandruGangadhara Rao (decided on 4-10-2021 Hon’bleNCDRC has held that “ from the record it is seen that petitionersin support of their contention, placed reliance on the treatmentrecord, which was a mere photocopy and not certified. Thedoctor who treated the Life assured was also not examined norwas his affidavit filed by the petitioners. Also, petitioner failedto satisfy this commission that there was any co-relation betweendeath of the Life assured and the suppression of ailment“chronic non-specific cervicitis”.
The only question for determination is as to whether therepudiation of the claim of the complainant on the abovereferred ground is legal or not?
The word ‘Accident’ has wide meaning. An accident is anoccurrence or an event, which is unforeseen and startles onewhen it takes place. It is not the happening of the expected but the happeningof the unexpected, which is called as an accident.
Perusal of exhibit A4 FIR shows that on 29-11-2019 at about8.30 p.m., the DLA along with her friend Abila was going onmotorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-KK-1977. Themotorcycle was run by said Abila at a high speed andwhen they reached near substation ,Ambalakkar, shetried to turn to right in a negligent manner. As a result, the DLAfell down and sustained injuries on her head and died on 30-11-2019 ,while she was under the treatment.Perusal of Post-mortemReport, which has been produced by thecomplainant and opposite party , clearly show that
1. There was abrasion 3x1.5 cm on outer to the ala of nose.
2. Abraded contusion 13x6x0.5 cm on right side of head and adjoining part of forehead just outer to outer end of eyebrow with a lacerated wound 3.5x1x0.5 cm (bone deep), oblique,4cm above its lower border. Depressed fracture fragmentation of the skull 2.5x1.5x0.5 cm at the lower end of right frontoparietal suture with fracture separation of the frontoparietal suture. Fracture fragmentation of right orbital plate and floor of right side of middle cranial fossa with a fissured fracture 12 cm long extending to the frontoparietal suture through right side of frontal bone. Fissured fracture 5.5 cm long on right side of frontal bone joining with the frontoparietal suture 3 cm outer to the fissured fracture.
3. Contusion 16x11.5x0.5 cm on top and left side of head and adjoining part of forehead acroos midline 3 cm inner to right eyebrow with a lacerated wound 4.5x0.5x1 cm oblique, just above its back margin underneath the skull showed fissured fracture 4.5 cm long, vertical, on left temporal bone, extending to the left fronotparietal suture with separation of the suture and fracture fragmentation of left side of anterior cranial fossa.
Brain showed contusions (i) 8x4.5x0.5 cm on outer aspect of left temporary bone, (ii)11x8.5x0.5 cm on outer aspect of tip of left temporal and parietal lobes, (iii)7x4.5x0.5 cm on left temporal and occipital lobes and (iv) 8x4.5x0.5 cm on outer aspect of right temporal lobe, with subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhages involving the entire brain surface with flattening of gyri and narrowing of sulci.
4. Superficial lacerated wound 1x0.5 cm along the outer border of left ear lobule.
5. Superficial lacerated wound 4x0.2 cm, curved, on left side of neck with the upper back end 2 cm below left ear.
6.Abrasion 2.5x0.5 cm on left side of front of neck 5 cm outer to midline and 6 cm above collar bone.
7. Abrasion 0.8x0.5 cm on outer aspect of right elbow.
8. Lacerated wound 2.5x1.5x0.1 cm on back of right forearm 1 cm below elbow.
9.Abrasion 23.5x1.5 to 4 cm, vertical, on back of right forearm and wrist.
10. Abraded contusion 9x7x1 cm on back of right hand just below wrist.
11. Abrasion 5x1.5 cm on outer aspect of right side of trunk overlying the top of hip bone.
12. Abraded contusion 5x4x1 cm on outer aspect of right thigh, 28 cm above the knee.
13. Abrasion 6x1.5 cm, horizontal, on outer and front aspect of right leg just below knee.
.14. Abrasion 0.5x0.5 cm on top of right foot 1 cm behind root of little finger.
15. Lacerated wound 3x2x0.8 cm on lower part of front of left knee reflecting am flap of skin and subcutaneous tissue 2x2x0.5 cm upward and inward.
16. Contusion 6x5x2.5 cm on outer aspect of left arm, 10 cm below tip of shoulder.
17. Contusion 21x11x1.5 cm on the tip and top of left shoulder and adjoining front aspect of chest. Underneath, the left collar bone was fractured at the junction of its middle and outer thirds. Heart showed a contusion 5x3.5x0.2 cm on front wall of right ventricle. Left chest cavity contained 450 ml of fluid blood and left lung was partly collapsed.
18. Contusion 14x12x1.5 cm on outer aspect of right side of chest just below front fold of armpit. Fracture of IV to VII ribs on right side at multiple sites. Right lung showed multiple lacerations corresponding to rib fractures and was partly collapsed. Right chest cavity contained a few ml of blood stained fluid. Laceration 9x2x2cm on under aspect of right lobe of liver with subcapsular haemorrhages (i) 6x4.5x0.2 cm on under aspect of left lobe and(ii) 2.5x1.5x0.2 cm on front of right lob. Peritoneal cavity contained 1.2 litre of thin blood.
19. Multiple contusions of sizes varying from 2.5x2x0.2cm to 8x5x0.2 cm on the large intestine at places. Retroperitoneal haematoma 22x14x2cm on left side of back wall of abdomen.
20. Sutured intercostals drainage wound 2.5cm long, horizontal, on outer aspect of right side of chest 10.5 cm below the middle of armpit.
.Cause of death is mentioned as under:
“Death was due to injuries sustained to head, chest andabdomen.”
Thus, it is clear from the Post-mortem Report that the death ofthe DLA had occurred only due to injuries sustained by her inthe accident. Opposite party have relied upon an observation onexhibit A5 and B4 post-mortem certificate that there wassurgical scar 9 cm long, horizontal, on front of lower abdomenjust above pubic symphysis across midline. They further reliedon certificate Ex.B5 which is a discharge summary issued fromthe Meditrinahospital Thiruvanathapurm, in which it ismentioned that the DLA remained admitted therein from 24-10-2019to 26-10-2019 and undergone for left ovariancysteomy on24-10-2019.. It is nowhere mentioned in that Post-mortem Reportthat said ailment of left ovarian cyst was the cause of death ofthe DLA, rather she died due to the injuries sustained to headand chest in the accident. In such circumstances, the allegedhospitalization of the DLA had no nexus with her accidentaldeath on 30-11-2019.. The claim of the complainant does notarise from hospitalization of DLA for any pre-existing disease,but it has been raised due to sudden death of the DLA in anaccident. Therefore, non-disclosing of such hospitalization whiletaking the insurance policy cannot be made a ground torepudiate the genuine claim of the complainant.
In Suibha Prakash MotegaonkarOrs . Vs. Life InsuranceCorporation of India , wherein the similar grounds were takenbefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the husband of thecomplainant at the time of taking policy had concealed the factthat is suffering from lumbar spondylitis with PID and therefore, on the said concealment the claim was repudiated . However,the deceased died due to ischemic heart disease and myocardialinfraction had nothing to do with his lumbar spondylitis withPID. Hence the alleged concealment was not of such a nature aswould disentitle the deceased from getting his life insured.
Therefore, National Commission had wrongly erred in acceptingthe repudiation of the claim . In this case , the Hon’ble SupremeCourt has held as under:
We are of the opinion that the National Commission was errorin denying to the appellants the insurance claim and acceptingthe repudiation of the claim by the respondent. The death of theinsured due to ischaemic heart disease and myocardial infarctionhad nothing to do with his lumbar spondylitis with PID withsciatica. In our considered opinion Since the allegedconcealment was not of such a nature as would dis-entitle thedeceased from getting his life insured , the repudiation of theclaim was incorrect and not justified.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of BranchManager, Bajaj Alliances Life Ins. Co. Ltd. &Ors. V/s Dalbirkaur (case no. 3397 of 2020. Dated on 9.10.2020) as under:
“12. The decision of this Court in Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkarvs Life Insurance Corporation of India, which has been reliedupon by the NCDRC, is clearly distinguishable. In that case, theassured suffered a myocardial infarction and succumbed to it.The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on theground that there was a suppression of a pre-existing lumbarspondilitis. It was in this background that this Court held that thealleged concealment was of such a nature that would not dis-entitle the deceased from getting his life insured. In other words,the pre-existing ailment was clearly unrelated to the cause ofdeath. This Court has also observed in its decision that theailment concealed by the deceased was not a life-threateningdisease. This decision must, therefore, be distinguished thefactual position has emerged before this Court.
As discussed above the opposite party failed to prove that therewas a nexus between the cause of death and treatment forwhich the deceased insured had undergone. More over thedischarge summary which was relied by the opposite party toprove that the deceased insured had undergone the treatment is is a photocopy. The opposite party did not adduceany evidence to prove that the ailment for which the deceasedinsured had undergone by surgery was life threatening, to influence thedecision of the insured to accept the risk of the insured’s life.In the light of above discussion we are of the opinion thatthe opposite parties has committed deficiency in serviceby repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant. Nodoubt the complainant had suffered much mental agonyand hardship due to the deficiency in service committedby the opposite party.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we allowthis complaint and pass the following order.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- tothe complainant ie the sum assured for the life of the deceasedReenu Elsa Renith with interest 9% from the date of thiscomplaint till realization.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ascompensation to the complainant for the deficiency in servicecommitted by the opposite parties.
- We herby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5000/- to thecomplainant as cost of this litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt ofthis orderfailing which the compensation amount will carry 9% from thedate of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23rdday of June, 2022.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Death certificate of Reenu Elsa Renjith from Thiruvananthapuram
Corporation
A2 –Copy of legalheir ship certificate dtd.22-04-2020
A3 – Copy of letter dtd.13-03-2020 issued by opposite party
A4 – Copy of FIR No.2688/2019 from Kazhakuttam police station
A5 –Copy of post-mortem certificate of ReenuElzaRenjith
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Original of proposal form of Life insurance own life signed by deceased
life assured
B2 – Copy of policy bond
B3 – Proposal review slip
B4 – Copy of post-mortem report
B5 – Copy of discharge summary from Meditina Hospital, Tvm
B6 – Copy of circular dtd.11-05-2018 by LIC
B7 series–Circular regarding Section 45 with Annexure of Section 45 of the Insurance Laws (Amendment Act 2015) are produced (2 nos.)
B8 – Copy of letter dtd.13-03-2020 by opposite party to petitioner
B9 – Copy of Order in Civil Appeal No.2776/2002 Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs.
New India Assurance Company
B10- Copy of judgement in Revision petition No.1327/2008 by National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Life Insurance Corporation
of India Vs. Smt. Maya Devi
By Order
Assistant Registrar
