Haryana

StateCommission

A/885/2019

LIC OF INDIA AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANI DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

VANDANA MALHOTRA

16 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.885 of 2019

Date of Institution:07.10.2019

Date of decision:16.12.2019

 

 

1.      M/s Life Insurance Corporation Delhi Divisional Office : II, 9^th Floor, “Scope Minar” Laxmi Nagar Delhi -110092 “Scope Minar” Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110092 through its Divisional Manager.

 

2.      M/s Life Insurance Corporation Branch Office, 11 U, A-8, Sector-11, Mathura Road, NIT, Faridabad through its Branch Manager.

…Appellants

Versus

 

 

Smt.Rani Devi aged about 54 years W/o Shri Udaibir Singh, Permanent R/o Village Ranipura, Barhai Phoop District Bhind Madhya Pradesh at present R/o H.No. 3923, Sector-3, Faridabad (Haryana).

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mrs. Manjula, Presiding Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants.

 

 

                                      O R D E R

 

MANJULA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

 

 

As per order dated 16.12.2019 contained in letter No.2926, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

2.      There is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal. The grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and in the interest of justice, delay of 22 days is allowed.

3.      The present appeal has been preferred by Life Insurance Corporation-O.Ps. against the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

4.      The brief facts of the case are that she (Smt.Rani Devi)  is mother of deceased (Harbir Singh), who obtained 21 life insurance policies from the opposite parties through an agent.  The deceased got his life insured with the opposite parties.  The O.Ps. issued 21 insurance policies in the name of deceased.  During his life time, the deceased had already deposited the regular premium installments with the opposite parties.  The agent of the O.Ps wrongly shown the deceased as employee in the LIC policies, whereas deceased was a businessman.  The deceased was an income tax payee. The son of the complainant was murdered on 28.09.2015. Claim filed, but, O.Ps have made the payment of Rs.30,000/- out of the total LIC policy amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. The O.Ps. did not pay the balance amount of Rs.5,70,000/-.  She sent a legal notice dated 16.11.2017 to the O.Ps., but, all in vain. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

5.      Upon notice,  opposite parties contested the complaint and alleged that the deceased-life assured had concealed and suppressed the true and material facts before the learned District Forum.    If the death occurs within 3 years from the date of effecting the policy it settles the claim only if the same was found to be genuine.   The complainant had illegally obtained the 21 insurance policies.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

6.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 01.08.2019 and granted relief as mentioned in para No.3 of the order.

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

8.      The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, the learned counsel for the appellants. With his kind assistance the entire record of the appellate file has been properly perused and examined.

9.      Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased-life assured illegally obtained 21 life insurance policies from the insurance company, so the complainant is not entitled for the insured amount. Thus according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased-life assured concealed the material information at the time of obtaining the policy in question.  Thus her claim was rightly repudiated by the appellant-insurance company.  Learned counsel for the appellants further prayed that impugned order passed by the learned District Forum be set aside, while accepting the appeal.

10.    After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and careful perusal of the evidence available on the record of the District Forum, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.  Perusal of the impugned order reveals that “upon close perusal  of the two proposal forms for the four complaints filed in this forum in complaint Nos. 178/2018, 177/2018, 176/2018 and 175/2018, it is observed that both are dated 10.01.2015 and the agent is common for both. In one proposal form, the occupation is shown as employee, whereas in the another, it is shown as business/property dealer. The same agent got two proposal forms filled on the same day and did not take note of the variation shown in occupation in the two forms. This is highly unlikely.  It is evident whatever was filled in the forms was filled with the connivance of the agent.”

11.    Thus, Life Insurance Corporation of India-appellant has wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant. The learned District Forum granted Rs.4,75,000/- by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.

12.    As discussed above, it is concluded that there is no merit in the appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed.

13.    Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants while filing the appeal shall be disbursed in favour of the complainant-Rani Devi against proper receipt and identification subject to decision of the appeal/revision, if any.

 

16th  December, 2019                                                       Manjula                                                                                                                                 Presiding Member                         

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)