Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Union of India and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Tulsiram Meena —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1749 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 30/04/2019 in Appeal No. 989/2018 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 15.6.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised at the stage of revision petition.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41 – Life Insurance – Policy claim – Scope – Wife of complainant took life insurance policy from petitioners for Rs. 10 lakhs – During the period of insurance, she got anaemia and because of which she died – Insurance Company repudiated the claim on ground that insured gave wrong information about her health – District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,00,000 to complainant – State Commission upheld the same – Hence this revision petition – Petitioner failed to show that Deceased Life Assured (DLA) was suffering from any pre-existing disease – Both Fora below have taken a view that anaemia is very common in rural women after the pregnancy – Further, if the issue of territorial jurisdiction had not been taken in written statement or in the memo of appeal, the same cannot be raised at the stage of revision petition – Interference with declined. (Paras 7 to 10)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Union of India & ors. against the order dated 30.04.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.989 of 2018.
2. Brief facts of the case are that wife of respondent/complainant took life insurance Policy from the petitioners/opposite parties on 16.02.2011 for Rs.10 lakhs which was to mature on 01.03.2043. During the period of insurance, she got anaemia and because of which she died on 17.11.2012. Complainant applied for claim after completing all the formalities but opposite parties refused to make payment on the ground that insured gave wrong information about her health. Complainant contacted opposite parties to reconsider the same but no change was made by the opposite party. The complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing no.317 of 2016 before the District Forum Consumer protection, II, Jaipur, (in short the ‘District Forum’). The District Forum vide its order dated 29.05.2016 passed the following order:-
“Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the opp. Party is directed to pay the amount of the questioned Daak Jeevan Beema Policy the insured amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten Lac only) and interest accrued thereon @9% from 16.06.2016 till the realization of the payment to the complainant.
Beside this the opp. Party is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousand only) for the mental agony and compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rs.five thousand only) for the court expenses within a period of two months.
In case of non compliance of the order after two months interest @ 12% will be entitled for the entire amount and the opp. Party will be responsible to pay the same.”
3. Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the opposite parties/petitioners herein filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 30.04.2019.
4. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) did not give the correct status of her health in the proposal form. She has clearly stated that she has a good health and that she was not suffering from any disease. The learned counsel drew my attention to the prescription/ doctor’s slip dated 17.11.2012 and on the basis of this learned counsel stated that the DLA was suffering from aplastic anaemia. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the treatment papers dated 17.11.2012. Learned counsel stated that when she was taking this treatment on 17.11.2012 she must be suffering from this disease when she filled the proposal form, however, no information has been given in the proposal form about her disease. This is a clear case of suppression of material information and therefore, the petitioners rightly repudiated the claim. Both the fora below have not appreciated the gravity of the disease from which the DLA was suffering and have allowed the insurance claim.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the District Forum, Jaipur did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the policy in question was taken by the deceased from Post Office Sirohi which has an independent and separate District Forum. It has been argued that this is a legal question and can be taken at any stage. It is true that the issue was not raised before the District Forum or before the State Commission. However, it is being raised at the stage of revision petition. Thus, the order passed by the District Forum and consequent order passed by the State Commission are without jurisdiction and therefore, are required to be set aside.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage. First of all, it is seen that both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact
