IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.08.2025 PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited and another ..... Petitioners VERSUS Mandeep Devi and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Ms. Jasmine, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

*****

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCDRC’) whereby, the order dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure P-8) passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DCDRF’) and order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SCDRC’) has been upheld whereby, respondent-complainant was held entitled to the insured amount of Rs.14,20,000/-. A further direction was also issued to the petitioners to pay an amount to the tune of Rs.5,500/- on account of mental agony, harassment suffered by the complainant and litigation expenses.

2. Brief facts of the present case are hereunder:-

That Sh. Rameshwar (since deceased), father of respondent-

complainant purchased a Life Insurance Policy No.21888607 “Met Family Income Protect Plus” on 27.4.2016 for a sum of Rs.14,20,000/- from the petitioners and had paid annual premium of Rs.8,212/- at Karnal Branch. Respondent-complainant was the nominee in the said policy. At the time of issuance of insurance policy, father (deceased/insured) of respondent-complainant was hale and hearty, but unfortunately on 27.05.2016, the father of respondent-complainant naturally died due to sudden heart attack. After death of the father (deceased/insured) of respondent-complainant, being nominee, she submitted death claim after completing all the necessary formalities.

3. The petitioners vide letter dated 31.12.2016, repudiated the death claim of respondent-complainant on the ground that her father was suffering from cancer prior to the issuance of the policy. Aggrieved against the abovesaid letter, respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the DCDRF. In the complaint, the case of respondent-complainant was that at the time of insurance, the insured is examined by the empanelled Doctor and only then, the insurance policy is issued. As there was no adverse report from the concerned doctor with regard to the insured, therefore, letter dated 31.12.2016 vide which, the claim of respondent- complainant was repudiated was illegal, arbitrary, null and void and is liable to be set aside. It was also the case of respondent-complainant that her father was not suffering from the alleged disease i.e. cancer, as such, there was deficiency in service on part of the petitioners.

4. Upon notice, the petitioners filed a written statement before the DCDRF. It was the case of the petitioners that the father (deceased/insured) of respondent-complainant, after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the insurance policy had offered to pay premium. It was the case of the petitioners that proposal form was explained to father (deceased/insured) of respondent- complainant and he had given a declaration stating that he has furnished the information after fully understanding the contents of the proposal form and after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy/plan, he applied for the same. It was also the case of the petitioners that father (deceased/insured) of respondent-complainant had applied for the policy/plan after making true and accurate disclosure of all the facts and had not withheld any necessary information. Further, upon receipt of the duly filled up proposal form and believing the information provided by the father (deceased/insured) of respondent-co