BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.14 OF 2024 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.114 OF 2022, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, ADILABAD Between:

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Mancherial Branch, Jeevan Jyothi, Plot No.4-95, Prabath Nagar, Near T.S.R.T.C Busstand, Mancherial Dist – 504 208.

2. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Dr. BR Ambedkar Stadium Road, Karimnagar – 505 001.

.…Appellants/Opp.Parties 1 & 2 And Smt.Bhupathi Laxmi, W/o. Late Govinda Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.63-380, First Zone, Post, Kalyani Khani, Mandamarri, Presently under Mancherial District Erstwhile Adilabad Dist – 504 208.

…..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opp.Parties 1&2: M/s.KRL Sarma Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: M/s. V. Shiva Shankar Babu QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN… IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU… MEMBER-JUDICIAL WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR *******

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble I/c President)

1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties U/s.41 of Consumer Protection Act,2019, praying this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission, Adilabad, dated

22.11.2023 passed in CC.No.114/2022 by allowing this First Appeal with entire costs and pass necessary orders in the interest of justice, otherwise the Appellants/Opposite Parties will be put to irreparable loss and hardship as the subject policy is an early claim, as the deceased policy holder died within 3 months and it attracts the Sec.45 of Insurance Act, 1938 basing on the material documents.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants are the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and the Respondent is the Complainant in CC.No.114/2022.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are, that the Complainant’s husband named Late Govinda Rao worked as sweeper in RK8 Dispensary in Mandamarri Division, had obtained several Life Insurance Policies during his lifetime from the Opposite Parties under the Salary Saving Scheme. The life expectancy of the employees working in such conditions of SCCL is usually limited. The life assured underwent several medical examinations and the reports revealed him as hale and healthy. Similar confidential reports were given by agents and Moral Hazard Report (MHR) given by Development officers. The life assured paid two monthly premiums under the policies as mentioned below:

S.No.	Policy No’s	Sum Assured	Date of Commencement	FUP	Table & term
1.	770201065	Rs.1,00,000	12.02.2021	5/21	914-16
2.	770185952	Rs.2,50,000	17.02.2019	5/21	814-12
3.	770188877	Rs.1,50,000	20.11.2019	5/21	814-15
4.	770188882	Rs.1,50,000	20.11.2019	5/21	814-15
5.	807568386	Rs. 75,000	27.07.2020	5/21	943-10
6.	770198060	Rs.1,00,000	21.03.2020	5/21	943-13

The life assured died on 10.05.2021 due to COVID-19, upon which the Complainant being the nominee submitted all the requisite claim papers and requested the Opposite Parties to settle the claim. However, the Opposite Parties have settled the claim under some other policies but failed to settle the claim under policy No.770201065 for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have already settled the claim under some policies and repudiating the other claims alleging suppression of material facts is not fair and justified. It is a well settled law that once the Corporation has paid the claim in one policy of the Insured/Deceased, it cannot raise a different stand in the claims of the other policies arising out of the same death of the life assured. The Opposite Parties repudiated the claim under the ground of suppression of material facts which cause mental agony and pain to the Complainant. Hence, the complaint.

5. The Opposite Parties filed their written version admitting to the fact that the above said p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document