Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1770/2017

MRS. PATANI JYOTSHABEN ARVINDBHAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL GOYAL

20 Jan 2020

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :20.01.2020

Date of Decision :04.02.2020

COMPLAINT NO.1770/2017

In the matter of:

Ms. Patani Jyotsnaben Arvindbhai,

W/o. Late Shri Patani Jyotsnaben Arvindbhai,

R/o. 41, Bapupurana Chhapra,

Vishvavidhaya Asarwa,

Ahmedabad, Gujrat-380016.                                            ………Complainant

Versus

 

1. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Having their registered office at:

Unit no.701, 702, & 703,

7.  

26/27 M.G. Road, Namgalore-560001.

 

2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

314. & 315 HB Twin Towers, Pitampura,

Netaji Subhash Palace, New Nelhi.                              ……..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. This order will dispose of application dated 31.05.19 moved by OP for dismissal of the complaint. The plea of the OP is that complainant has challenged repudiation and the ground of repudiation was that complainant had obtained the policy by suppression of the fact as to earlier insurance policy worth Rs.12 lakhs. This objection has been taken at the time of filing WS. OP has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4261/2019 titled as Reliance Life Insurance Company ltd vs. Rekhaben Naresh Bhai Rathore Manu/SC/0593/2019 where it was categorically held that suppression of information as to the other insurance policy held by the life assured as sought in the proposal form is material fact and suppression thereof renders the policy as null and void under Section 45 of the Insurance Act. Repudiation of claim in such cases cannot be faulted.
2. The complainant has filed reply raising preliminary objections that judgement relied by OP is not correct law in view of settled preposition of law. On merits she stated that repudiation by OP is totally against settled law by catena of judgements passed by NC as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. Averments made in complaint as well as rejoinder may be read as part of this reply. It is settled law that an earlier judgement of another coordinate bench of the same tribunal or court cannot be over ruled by subsequent bench of similar strength and same is liable to be referred to larger bench so that the difference of opinion between two benches should be avoided.
3. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments on the said application. Firstly the counsel for the complainant wanted that this application should be decided at the time of final arguments. I am unable to subscribe to the arguments.  If a case can be disposed of on preliminary question of law, it is of no use to keep the case pending.
4. The fact that complainant had earlier policy, did not disclose the same in the proposal form are not in dispute. Now the question which remains to be decided is as to what is the effect of said concealment.
5. The counsel for complainant relied upon decision of NC in Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd vs. Rayani Ramanjaneyulu III (2014) CPJ 582, decision of NC in R.P. No.4139/15 titled as  Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company vs. Paramjit Kaur decided on 10.05.16, decision of NC in Aviva Life Insurance Company Ltd vs. Rekhaben Ramji Bhai Parmar II (2017) CPJ 463, decision of NC in Sulochna Indurkar vs. LIC 2015 law suit (C.O.) 1577, decision of NC in R.P. No.4502/10 titled as LIC vs. Shahida Begum decided on 06.07.11 to make out that concealment of previous policy is not a ground for repudiating the claim.
6. I feel that in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation vs. Rekhaben Naresh Bhai Rathore (Supra), I am unable to follow the decision of NC.
7. Complainant has also referred to decision of  District Forum, North East, Delhi in CC no.324/17 titled as Ms. Patani Meenaben Bharat Bhai vs. Aditya Birla Sunlight decided on 07.09.18. I am afraid if decision of District Forum is a precedent or can be cited in State Commission.
8. Reference to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.I. Ruplal vs. Lt. Governor AIR 2000 SC 594 regarding law of precedent is not material in the present case because the complainant has not cited any contrary decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Same is the position of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Centrea Board of Dwaudi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharastra Manu/SC/1069/2004.
9. Order dated 21.02.18 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C ) D2054/2017 titled as State of Haryana vs. M/s. G.D. Goyanka Tourism Corporation Ltd. simply says that pending final decision on making reference (if, at all) to a larger bench, the High Courts be requested not to deal with any cases relating to incorporation of or concerning section 24 of Right to fair compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act 2013. That does not advance the case of the complainant.
10. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4261/2019 titled as Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd vs. Rekhaben Naresh Bhai Rathore supra the application is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.
11. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
12. File be consigned to record room.

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                       MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•