IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Policy cannot be cancelled after occurrence of peril.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 942 of 2003 – The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Prateek Rathi & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing compliant was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Kamal Kishore Rathi father of the complainants/respondents took Janta Personal Accident Policy for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the period 2.12.1998 to 1.12.2008 from OP/petitioner and paid Rs.1250/- towards premium. Insured Kamal Kishore died in road accident on 25.5.2002 and his nominee wife also died in road accident. Complainants lodged complaint with the OP. OP repudiated claim on the ground that policy had already been cancelled on 7.4.2002. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before the District Forum. OP/petitioner contested complaint and submitted that, as policy had already been cancelled on 7.4.2002, and premium was refunded, there was no deficiency on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.5,00,000/- along with 10% p.a. interest to the complainants and further awarded Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as policy in favour of deceased was cancelled as per Condition No. 5 of the policy on 7.4.2002 and insured died on 25.5.2002, no money was payable under the said policy and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to Condition No. 5 of the policy, Insurance Policy of the deceased was cancelled on 7.4.2002 i.e. prior to his death; hence, no money was payable under the policy. Perusal of policy reveals that policy does not contain any such condition either on the front or on the back page of policy. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards format of standard terms of Janta Personal Accident Policy containing Condition No. 5 according to which, Insurance Company had right to cancel policy at any time after written notice. As policy issued by the petitioner to deceased does not contain this condition, learned District Forum has not committed any error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court judgements reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.K.J. Corporation1 and Modern Insulators Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.2 in which it was held that where exclusion clause of the standard policy was neither a part of the contract of insurance nor disclosed to the insured, the Insurance Company cannot claim the benefit of said exclusion clause. It was further observed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.K.J. Corporation (supra) that it is the duty of the insured and their agent to disclose all material facts within their knowledge since obligation of good faith applies to them equally with the assured. Had petitioner or their agent disclosed Condition No. 5 of the standard format, deceased might have not opted for this policy. In the absence of any iota of evidence on record re