JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3. The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant’s husband Late Swapneswar Pradhan had purchased a LIC policy bearing No.572855745 for Rs.2,00,000/- commencing from 28.08.2009. The Policy holder died on 22.09.2010 having suffered from heard attack while travelling from Prasanti Nilayam to Berhampur. After death the complainant being nominee filed the claim but the OP repudiated the claim by observing that the complainant has made incorrect statement having not disclosed in the proposal form about earlier policy purchased and for health condition he suffered. On the other hand OP repudiated on the ground of suppression of material fact by the policy holder. Challenging said repudiation as deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

4. The OP filed written version stating that they have issued two policies to the complainant. After receiving the claim, they have enquired the matter and found against column no.9 of the proposal form, the complainant has not mentioned about the policy number which was purchased previously. Due to suppression of material fact, they have called the policy in question U/S-45 of the Insurance Act, 1938.

5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:—

xxxx xxx xxx

“In the result, we allow the case of the complainant and direct the Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable to pay assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) only to the complainant/nominee in respect of the policy bearing No.572855745 with interest @ 6% (six percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. on 5.12.2012 till its actual payment. The Opposite Parties is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) only towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The above amount has to be paid by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 % (nine percent) per annum till the date of actual realization of the amount. The case is disposed of accordingly.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering written version with proper perspectives. Since, policy holder has not disclosed the previous policy no.572855039 purchased and had suppressed the same while filled up column-9 of proposal form, the OP-insurer took same as material suppression and accordingly called the policy in question. As such the insurance contract has been violated. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. He has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Apeal No.4261 of 2019 Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vrs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod to support his case.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that some agent of OP has filled up both the proposal form but if the any agent of LIC committed error by not showing the said policy in column no.9 policy holder is not responsible. Since, the defect lies with the agent of the OP, the complainant not to be allowed to suffer. He also submitted that agent of the LIC being employee has sgiven shorn answer, the LIC-OP being employee is bound by the defect committed by their agent. So, he submitted that the complainant is entitled to the entire sum assured. Thus, he supports the impugned order.

8. Considered the submissions of respective parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.

9. It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a policy for sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP commencing from 28.08.2009. It is admitted fact that policy No.572855039 has been purchased on 24.12.2009 i.e. before 31.12.2009.