Back
2010 (4) CPR 247
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Syed Abdulla and R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member
Murala Subba Lakshmi —Appellant
versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India
and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 1714 of 2007
Decided on 4.3.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. M. Haribabu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. G. Shyamala, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere wrong information with regard to policies subsistence of earlier cannot be a ground to repudiate claim under Life Insurance policy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Life Insurance policy claim—Policy for Rs. 5,00,000 was taken on 28.11.2003 and insured died on 6.8.2004 of heart attack—Claim repudiated on ground that insured was in heavy debts and committed suicide and he had suppressed materials information about his earlier two policies—District Forum accepted opponent’s plea and dismissed complaint—Appeal—Responsibility was on Insurance Company to find out time facts as noted in proposal—Respondent could have verified status of earlier two policies—It was for Insurance Company to establish that there was an intentional suppression of material facts—Agent who gave investigation report did not file any affidavit—Merely because insured had filed insolvency petition it could not be prescribed or inferred that insured committed suicide and there was no other evidence that he committed suicide—Repudiation of claim was not justified—Complainant held entitled to insurance amount with interest at 9% p.m. (Paras 10 to 12)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Syed Abdullah, Member —The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant in CC 21/2007 before the District Forum I, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the insurance claim filed by the appellant/complainant was dismissed. Aggrieved by the impugned order, this appeal is filed questioning the legality and propriety of it and sought to set aside the order.
2. The facts of the case disclose that the complainant’s husband by name Murala Veera Venkteswara Rao @ Konda @ Kondala Rao during his lifetime took an insurance policy bearing No. 673164839 on 28.11.2003 for a sum ct Rs.5,00,000 from OP1 Insurance Company and he paid premia regularly. While so on 6.8.2004 he died of heart attack. At the time of giving policy a medical examination was done and the policy was issued for a period of 15 years and the complainant is the nominee for the policy. On the death of the insured, the complainant informed the death to OP1 by submitting all original records as required in May, 2005. OP1 had not settled the claim. Subsequently on 6.1.2007 OP1 addressed a letter to her Advocate informing that the claim is under consideration and thereafter on 21.3.2007 OP 2 informed the complainant that her husband committed suicide within one year from the commencement of the policy. That on account of his debts he filed IP in a Court of Law to protect himself from the creditors as such the policy has become null and void which is not correct. The act or omission on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
3. The OP2 filed its version and the same was adopted by OP1 stating that on 28.12.1996 the complainant’s husband had taken a policy bearing No.671202796 for Rs.50,000 and the said policy had lapsed on 28.12.2002 for non-payment bf premiums. So also on 28.7.1994 he had obtained another policy 6/1881114 for Rs.50,000 and the said policy had lapsed as he was unable to pay the premiums. Therefore the said policies were under the lapsed status as on 27.1.2003 by which date he had taken the present policy for Rs. 5,00,000. The insured had suppressed the material facts and misrepresented the facts in column No.9 of the proposal form stating that the two earlier policies were in force even though the said policies were in lapsed status. Without furnishing the income proof the insured falsely stated that his income was at Rs.2,00,000 by doing masonry and contract works. There was fraudulent intention in obtaining the policy in question. The complainant informed the death of her husband on 6.8.2004 along with death certificate. The death of the insured took place within 8 months and 8 days from the date of taking the policy on 28.11.2003. As the claim was an earlier one, an inquiry was ordered by appointing investigating agency which revealed that the insured died by committing suicide as he was having heavily debts to the creditors and the creditors were pressurizing for repayment. As the insured had become a bankrupt he filed IP 42/2004 before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Machilipatnam on 30.7.2004 just one week prior to his death. His liabilities are shown as Rs.8,05,000 exceeding his assets. The death of assured was not due to heart attack but it is only suicidal death. He was not admitted in any Governmental hospital and no certificate was issued by any doctor in this regard.
During the inquiry on the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to A5 along with the evidence affidavit was filed and the opposite parties have also filed their affidavit along with Exs.B1 to B10.
4. After going through the evidence on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the insured had wrongly mentioned that he was getting an annual income of Rs. 2,00,000 so also that he wrongly mentioned in column 9 of the proposal that his two earlier policies were in force. As the insured had suppressed the material facts and obtaining the policy by fraudulent means it is held that repudiation of the policy is justified.
5. Point for consideration is whether the
