A State Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising out of repudiation of insurance claims, and the repudiation of a claim on the mere allegation of suppression of facts by the insured does not bar the Commission from investigating whether the repudiation was justified.

Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President — Smt. Nalini Joshi (complainant) has filed this complaint under S.12 read with Sec. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein) against the Life Insurance Corporation & Others opposite parties who will hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation” on 22.8.90 praying that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- together with interest, bonus and costs may be awarded to her from the Corporation. It was also prayed that interest @ 18% from 1.12.1989 may also be awarded. The husband of the complainant was Shri Kuldeep Pareek who was working as Personnel Officer in Rajasthan State Electricity Board. Shri Kuldeep Pareek obtained 3 policies :—

(1) 26001041 for Rs. 15,000/- 2) 50894991 for Rs. 30,000/- and 3) 190375409 for Rs. 50,000/- from the Corporation. All the three policies covered accident risk. The case set up by the complainant is that in case of accident if the husband of the complainant dies the nominee will get double the amount of the policy. The policy of Rs. 50,000/- was to expire on 1.1.2004. It was under Policy Proposal No. 1699-159 and the nominee of the policy was the complainant. The quarterly premium of the policy was Rs. 1,139.40. It commenced on 1.4.1989. The husband of the complainant deposited the premium according to the premium notices as and when received. The complainant has alleged that on 12.11.1989 about 3.30 p.m. her husband was going from Bhawani Singh Road towards Santokba Durlabhji Hospital to bring his wife and children from B-50, Ganesh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. Near Jyoti Marg in order to save a cow scooter No. RNE 3585 of the complainant’s husband slipped. On account of this her husband fell down and became unconscious. The constable on duty at that time Shri Prabhu Dayal by name took the complainant’s husband to S.M.S. Hospital and got him admitted where her husband was treated for brain injury.

2. The complainant’s husband was kept in I.C.U. but he died in the morning of 13.11.1989. The accident is said to have taken place on 12.11.1989 at4 p.m. The complainant had pleaded that the Doctor’s certificate shows that there was a skull injury. The F.I.R. dated 13.11.1989 was lodged at the Police Station by the brother of the husband of the complainant as having been died on account of accident. In respect of the 3rd policy No. 190375409, three premiums were paid by the complainant’s husband. After the death of the complainant’s husband, she submitted death certificate, doctor’s certificate etc. to the opposite parties. Despite that amount was not paid. The amounts of first two policies i.e., 26001041 and 50894991 the sums assured Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- were paid but the accidental benefit was not allowed though the policies were with the accidental benefits. The complainant has alleged that her husband died on account of the injuries suffered by him on account of the slipping of the scooter as is evident from the medical report but the opposite parties falsely stated that he was suffering from Diabetes and he suppressed this fact at the time of declaration. It was also submitted that the complainant’s husband during his life time took medical leave. But in none of the application it was stated that the medical leave is being taken as he was suffering from Diabetes. She, therefore, filed the complaint praying that the sum assured Rs. 50,000/- and accidental benefit of the like amount Rs. 50,000/- may be ordered to be paid to her of policy No. 190375409. Rs. 45,000/- were claimed, as accidental benefit under policies No. 50894991 and 26001041. Besides this a sum of Rs. 5,000/- spent on the medicines etc. and Rs. 50,000/- for bodily pain and mental torture and Rs. 50,000/- for not making the payment of the assured amount for violating the terms of the policy were claimed. Thus, she claimed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. until payment.

3. In support of the complaint Smt. Nalini Joshi submitted her affidavit. With the complai