Details DD MM YYYY Date of Judgment 11 09 2023 Date of Filing 04 08 2017 Duration 07 01 06 IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE OF GUJARAT COURT -4 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 98 OF 2017 REKHABEN RAMESHBHAI PRAJAPATI

138-5, Manubhai Ni Chal, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad- 380006 …Complainant Versus PNB MET LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD Unit no. 201,202,203 Second Floor, Sun Square, New Classic Gold Hotel, C. G. Road, Ahmedabad.

…. Opposite Party CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. R N Mehta, Presiding Member Appearance: Mr. V M Pancholi, advocate for complainant Mr. T S Wadhva, advocate for opposite party.

(Order by Mr. R N Mehta)

[1]. The complainant above named, widow of deceased Mr. Rameshkumar Tulsiram Prajapati (herein after referred as “Insured” or “Life Assured” or “Proponent”) has presented this complaint alleging therein deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed for following reliefs.

(a). Be pleased to direct the opponent to pay Rs.22,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 % p.a.

from the date of repudiation i.e., 30/3/2017.

(b). Be pleased to direct the opponent to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and harassment to the complainant.

(c). Be pleased to direct the opponent to pay Rs.25,000/- to complainant towards the cost of this litigation.

(d). Any other appropriate order may be passed looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.

[2]. The complainant, an Indian citizen, residing at the address mentioned in the cause title with family members. It is say of the complainant that her husband was approached by the agent of the opponent company and canvassed insurance business and as a result thereof the life assured applied for life insurance policy known as Met Family Income Protector Plus-Inv. for sum assured of Rs.22,75,000/- for the period from 14/8/2014 to 14/8/2034. The complainant states that the opponent thereafter collected premium and issued Policy No. 21371738. The complainant states that her name was inserted as Nominee under the policy. It is further stated that the life assured expired on 24/5/2016 due to heart attack for which Dr. Naresh P Kapadiya issued death certificate. It is also stated that death was registered with local authority who also in turn issued death certificate.

[3]. The complainant states that the opponent insurance company was informed about the death of life assured and submitted claim form to lodge death claim. The complainant states that to her utter shock and surprise, the opponent insurer disowned liability vide letter dated 30/3/2017 and informed that after examining documents on record and considering facts and circumstances, it revealed that details provided at the time of inception of policy were not genuine. The complainant states that the opponent insurer thus wrongly repudiated genuine claim of the complainant. It is stated further that Proponent had submitted all necessary papers in August 2014 and after verification of the same policy was issued. The complainant states that premium of Rs. 13412.98 was collected and thereafter policy was issued and regular premium was paid too. On 30/3/2017, the opponent cancelled insurance policy. The complainant state that opponent has no right to terminate insurance policy unilaterally after death of insured. The complainant alleged that action of the opponent insurance company smells malafide intention of the opponent company and therefore contrary to law. The complainant therefore to recover the benefits of insurance policy presented this complaint under the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as The Act or Act) and also claimed for compensation. The complainant has placed on record, copy of insurance policy schedule, copy of death certificate, Copy of Doctor’s certificate, copy of claim form and copy of repudiation letter.

[4]. The complaint was heard primarily and was ordered to admit complaint for adjudication under provisions of The Act an