Haryana

StateCommission

A/677/2019

LIC OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHDEV - Opp.Party(s)

VANDANA MALHOTRA

12 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                  First Appeal No.677 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 01.08.2019

                                                        Date of Final Hearing: 12.09.2022

Date of pronouncement: 14.12.2022

 

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Karnal through its Regional Manager.

(Both through Manager Legal, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Parkash Building, Divisional Office, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh).

…..Appellants

Versus

Sahdev S/o Mr.Sahi Ram, R/o Village Bhana, Tehsil Pundri,Distt. Karnal, Haryana.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

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

                   Mr.Balraj Dhull, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.677 of 2019 has been filed against the impugned order dated 24.05.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.149 of 2018, which was allowed.

2.      Facts, in brief, as culled out from the complaint are that On 12.07.2014, wife of the complainant took one life insurance policy for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Unfortunately on 09.01.2015, said life assured wife of the complainant expired. Being her nominee, complainant lodged the claim with the OPs, but, they repudiated the same vide letter dated 20.08.2016 on the ground of concealment of age, which of course was wrong and illegal. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

3.      Notice issued, opposite parties filed reply. It was submitted that the deceased life assured had understated her actual age by four years. At the time of proposal she was not less than 35 years of age and her qualification was under middle standard at that time.  As per the policy, she was not eligible for Rs.4,00,000/-. The OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 20.08.2016. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District
Commission, Kaithal allowed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 24.05.2019.  Relevant portion is as under:-

“Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount within one month. However, it is made clear that the premium amount which already paid by the life assured to the insurance company and the same is returned by the OPs to the complainant, if any, will be deducted from the entitled amount.  We further clarify that if there is any difference of the premium amount between age of 31 to 35 years, the OPs can deduct the difference of premium amount from the entitled amount and further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs have preferred this appeal.

6.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.Balraj Dhull learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records have been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that on the basis of information furnished in the proposal form by the complainant, the appellants issued insurance policy for a sum assured of Rs.4,00,000/-. The DLA has died on 09.01.2015 i.e. within six months from the date of commencement of the policy.  Learned counsel further argued that during the assessment of the claim, it was revealed  the DLA was more than 31 years at the time of issuance of policy.  She also concealed her age and qualification at the time of issuance of policy. The OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 20.08.2016. Learned District Commission has wrongly allowed the claim of the complainant and prayed that the complaint be dismissed. Counsel placed his reliance upon authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled  Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. NIA, 2009 (3) CPC 6 and P.C.Chacko & Anr. Vs. Chairman, LIC   III (2008) CPJ 78 (SC).

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that  during the subsistence of the policy, the wife of the complainant has passed away and being a nominee, he be entitled for the insured amount. The DLA has not concealed the material information at the time of issuance of the policy.  The insurance company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

9.       It is admitted that policy in question was issued by the OPs.  It is also  admitted that during the subsistence of the policy, wife of the complainant has died.  The plea of the appellant was that DLA has concealed the educational qualification as well as her age in the proposal form, which were quite so relevant, the complainant was not entitled for the whole of insured amount.  However, since, the DLA has paid the premium to the OPs, so, he is entitled for the premium amount to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. half of the insured amount,  but, not the full insured amount for which of course she could legally be insured as per rules and regulation of the insurance company. With this above stated modification, the appeal stands disposed off.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.              File be consigned to record room.

14th  December, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)