IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance policy cannot be cancelled unilaterally by Insurance Company unless personal intimation is given to insured.

S.C. Vyas, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.7.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G.) (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) in Complaint Case No.32/2009, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, in respect of claim for sum assured on account of accidental death of her husband Late Shri Dinesh Singh, has been dismissed on the ground that it has not been established that deceased Shri Dinesh Singh, died accidentally.

2. It is not in dispute that husband of the complainant Late Shri Dinesh Singh, was working with S.E.C.L. respondent No.2 and was insured by the respondent No.1 Insurance Company under Group Janta Personal Accident Policy for the period between 16.10.1999 to 15.10.2009 against the accidental death for a sum of Rs.5,00,000. As per case of the complainant appellant, her husband Late Shri Dinesh Singh, while taking bath fell down in the bath-room and died on 11.9.2005. The matter was reported to the Police. He was brought to the Main Hospital, S.E.C.L., where he was declared dead. The Police duly prepared the Inquest Report and then found that there was some black marks on both palms of the deceased and it was prima facie found that he died on account of Electrocution. The dead body was sent to Autopsy Surgeon for Postmortem Examination Report and Autopsy was conducted by the Autopsy Surgeon, but before he could sent his Report to the Police, the Autopsy Surgeon himself died. In these circumstances, Postmortem Report of deceased Dinesh Singh, could not be recorded. When claim was preferred by the complainant before the Insurance Company, then it repudiated her claim on the ground that policy in question, was already cancelled by it after refunding prorata premium to the employer of the deceased Dinesh Singh, respondent No.2/S.E.C.L and so, Insurance Company, is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The jurisdiction of the District Forum has also been challenged by the Insurance Company. Whereas, employer of the deceased Dinesh Singh, respondent No.2/S.E.C.L. has supported the case of the complainant in the Written Version.

3. Learned District Forum, agreed with the contentions of the Insurance Company that it could not be established that deceased Dinesh Singh died accidentally for want of sufficient evidence. Apart from it, complaint was also found barred by limitation and on these grounds, it has been dismissed.

4. We have heard the arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.

5. So far as the defence regarding cancellation of Insurance Policy is concerned, admittedly no intimation was given by the Insurance Company to the insured personally during his lifetime regarding cancellation of the policy in question and as per settled position of the law, the policy was in existence and was not liable to be cancelled unilaterally by the Insurance Company unless personal intimation is given to the insured, and so on the date of incident also, the liability of the Insurance Company was existing.

6. The second question is that of limitation. The complaint was filed by the complainant on 27.5.2009, whereas deceased Dinesh Singh died on 11.9.2005, therefore, if we calculate the period of limitation from the date of his death, then probably it can be said that complaint has been filed late, but it appears that Insurance Company, has not repudiated the claim of the complainant timely. In this regard, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Insurance Company is that no claim for the sum assured in the prescribed proforma was submitted by the complainant/appellant before the Insurance Company and only a legal notice was sent by her. Whatever may be the actual factual position, but it hardly matters if the claim is in the form of legal notice or in the form of application, but unless the decision of repudiation of claim is intimated to the complainant/ appellant, the cause of action remain