SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009(2) CPR 385 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President, and B.K. Taimni, Member
Life Insurance Corporation of
India –Petitioner
versus
Kulwant Kumari –Respondent
Revision Petition No.485 of 2006
Decided on 1-5-2009

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Advo-cate.
For the Respondent:Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
For the purposes of Section 45 of the Life Insurance Act, 1938, the period of two years has to be counted from the date on which the Policy was originally effected and not from the date of the revival of the Policy.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Life Insurance Policy Claim—Repudiation of claim on ground that insured was suffering from Diabetic Mellitus two years before revival of policy—Policy was taken on 9-4-2000 and was got revived on 7-5-2002 and insured died on 4-4-2003 of heart failure—Fora below allowed complaint—Revision—For purposes of Section 45 of Life Insurance Act period of two years was to be counted from date on which policy was originally effected and not from date of revival of policy—Findings of facts by Fora below that there was no material to showed if insured was suffering from disease for two years prior to 2000 being finding of fact could not be interfered in revision. (Paras 6 to 9)

       Result: Revision dismissed.

       

ORDER

Ashok Bhan, President—Life Insurance Corporation of India-petitioner herein, who was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) has filed this Revision Petition against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) in First Appeal No.1337 of 2005. By the impugned Order, State Commission has upheld the Order of the District Forum.

2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are:

Shri Kailash Chander (since deceased) got himself insured with the petitioner-Corporation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.04.2000. The Policy had lapsed because of non-payment of premium. On payment of due premium and other dues, the Policy was revived on 07.05.2002. Kailash Chander died of heart failure on 04.04.2003. The complainant-respondent herein, widow of Kailash Chander, being the nominee under the Policy, lodged the complaint before the petitioner-Corporation which was repudiated on the ground that the deceased was suffering from Diabetic Mellitus two years before the date of revival and that he was getting treatment for the same for the last two years prior to the revival of the Policy.

3. On receipt of the letter of repudiation dated 13.09.2003, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum challenging the repudiation of the claim and seeking a direction to the petitioner-Corporation that the complainant should be paid the insured amount. District Forum, after appreciating the evidence produced by the parties, allowed the complaint in the following terms:-

“14. As such repudiation of the claim was unjustified and repudiation amounts to deficiency of service. As such we allow the complaint for recovery of insured amount with 8% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. Interest would serve as compensation. Complainant is further awarded Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.”

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned Order.

5. Shri Ashok Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the declaration given by the deceased, at the time of getting the Policy revived on 07.05.2002, regarding his state of health, was incorrect. Following were the questions and the answers given at the time of revival of the Policy:-

Questions Answers

a) Have you ever suffered

from any illness/disease

requiring treatment for a

week or more? No

b) Did you ever have any operation/accident or injury? No

c) Did you ever undergo ECG,

X-Ray, Screening, Blood, urine

or stool examination? No

d) Are you at present in sound

health? Good

6. It is not disputed before us that the Policy was not repudiated on the ground that at the time when initial Policy was taken, there was any misrepresentation or intentional concealment of facts by the deceased-insured. In the present case, two years have elapsed after the issuance of the Policy and the burden to prove that the deceased had concealed the facts was on the Insurance Company in terms of Section 45 of the Life Insurance Act, 1938. It was then submitted by Shri Kashyap that revival of the Policy constituted a new contract between the parties and two years have to be counted from the date of revival of Policy. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mithoolal Nayak v. Life Insurance Corporation of India1 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held that for the purposes of Section 45 of the Life Insurance Act, 1938, the period of two years has to be counted from the date on which the Policy was originally













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top