STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office, Haridwar Road, Dehradun Through Manager ……Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Smt. Shama Shabri W/o Late Sh. Ahmad Hussain R/o House No. 891, Sabri Ghar, Kilkali Shah Road, Piran Kaliyar, Roorkee, Tehsil Roorkee, Haridwar ….…Respondent / Complainant Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Respondent in Person Coram: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II Mr. Bhagwat Singh Manral, Member Dated: 14/07/2022

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):

This appeal has been directed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment / order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 59 of 2015 styled as Smt. Shama Shabri vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, wherein the District Commission was pleased to allow the petition of the respondent – complainant by directing the appellant – insurance company to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/-

Revision Petition No. 16 / 2019 alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as costs within one month from the date of judgment alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum.

2. In the memo of appeal, the appellant has narrated the grounds for filing its appeal stating that the impugned judgment is an unreasoned and biased, one sided judgment without going into the depth of the matter and without any justification. It is based on surmises and conjectures as there was concealment of facts by the life assured; that is gross violation of the policy conditions. It is further averred in the appeal, the policy of the insurance is a contract made in utmost good faith and the insured obtained the same by concealment of the facts. The age disclosed was wrong and understated. The correct age was concealed deliberately for monetary gains because had the correct age been disclosed, the appellant would not have insured the life assured, therefore, the District Commission has committed manifest error of law in wrongly appreciating the evidence contrary to the facts and totally disregarded the defense plea. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that the District Commission has failed to place reliance upon the evidence filed by the appellant; there was no deficiency in service on the part of the company, therefore, the petition was not maintainable and sustainable, hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed, the District Commission has misinterpreted the citations and precedents presented by the appellant. The liability of the appellant is not covered by the conditions and provisions of the policy, hence, there was no basis for the same awarded by the District Commission. The Commission be pleased to set aside the judgment by allowing the appeal and the appellant be exonerated from the judgment challenged in the appeal.

3. The facts giving rise to the appeal in hand, in brief, are as such that the complainant husband (deceased) Late Sh. Ahmad Hussain has purchased a life insurance policy worth Rs. 1,50,000/- with the premium of Rs. 7,206/- bearing policy No. 272885931, whereas second life insurance policy was purchased by her husband for the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the premium of Rs. 12,010/- bearing policy No. 272885458, wherein in both the policies, the complainant was made ‘nominee’. The husband (deceased) of the complainant has expired on 18.10.2012 due to some disease at his own house. Thereafter, the opposite party has not paid the claim amount to the complainant inspite of several requests. Consequently, the complainant has to face financial and mental agony, therefore, she has brought the complaint case with the prayer before the District Commission to direct the insurance company – opposite party to pay the insured amount of both the life insurance policies bearing Nos. 272885931 & 272885458 alongwith costs of suit Rs. 20,000/-