ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 30.08.2022 Reserved on : 25.09.2024 Date of decision : 24.10.2024 Ramandeep Kaur, aged about 27 years, daughter of Sarabjeet Kaur resident of House No.205-A, Jogi Basti, Ward No.6, 8, 9 & 10, Dharamkot, Tehsil Dharamkot, District Moga-142 042.

Appellant/Complainant Versus The Manager, HDFC SL Moga Branch 1^st Floor, Flat No.990, Ward No.05, G.T.Road, Moga, Opposite State Bank of Patiala (Old Building)

Moga-142001.

.….Respondent/Opposite party First Appeal Under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga in CC/48/2020 Quorum:-

Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-

For the appellant : Sh. Arif Qureshi, Advocate For respondent : Ms. Monika Thatai, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/

complainant against the impugned order dated 14.07.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite party (in short ‘OP’), under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, was dismissed.

3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

4. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the agent of the OP; namely, Manish Arora allured Sarabjit Kaur, mother of the complainant, for the purchase of a insurance policy and the said agent himself filled the proposal form. The mother of the complainant paid a sum of Rs.85,000/- on account of first premium of the policy and the OP issued policy bearing No.19596356 under the Plan HDFC SL Pro Growth Super II commenced w.e.f. 14.09.2017. The date of maturity of the policy was mentioned as 14.09.2027 and the maturity value was Rs.10,00,000/-. Unfortunately, on 30.09.2017 the policy holder i.e. mother of the complainant expired and intimation regarding her death was given to the OP. Thereafter, in the month of April 2018, the complainant being the nominee of the policy holder, sent all the filled forms and original copy of the insurance policy to OP for the purpose of settlement of her genuine claim. However, instead of settling the claim, the OP vide letter dated 02.07.2018, repudiated the claim on the ground of concealment of material facts at the time of filling up the proposal form. The complainant alleged that the proposal form was filled by the agent of the OP, who did not ask any question with regard to alleged section 03 and 13 of the proposal form. The policy holder was not holding any other policy and she was not having any pre-existing disease, rather she was medically examined by the panel doctor of the insurance company and declared medically fit. The act and conduct of the OP in repudiating the claim, amounted to deficiency in service on its part. As such, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Commission and sought directions against the OP to settle the claim lodged by her to the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.

5. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written reply, wherein it raised certain preliminary objections, which are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. On merits, OP stated that the mother of the complainant; namely, Sarabjeet Kaur (hereinafter referred as DLA) had submitted an online/electric enrollment form/proposal form dated 08.09.2017 for purchase of “HDFC SL Progrowth Super II Policy” and on the basis of the same, the policy in question was issued to her. The OP further stated that the DLA died on 30.09.2017 and the complainant being her nominee, intimated the OP and applied for death claim of DLA on 07.06.2018. As it was an early death claim