THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.4755 OF 2010

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“... to issue a writ, order or direction, preferably, one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records in F A No.417 of 2006 on the file of AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad leading up to and including the order dated 24-09-2009, reversing the well considered order dated 08-02-2006 passed in C.D. No. 64 of 2005 by the District Consumer Forum-II, Tirupathi and consequently be pleased to quash the order dated 24-09-2009 passed in F.A.No.417 of 2006 as arbitrary, illegal and against terms of contract of Insurance; thus resulting in mis-carriage of justice and pass such other order or further orders ...”

2. Heard Sri S. Agasthya Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company and Smt. G. Jhansi, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of respondent has taken a long term Janatha Accident Personal Insurance Policy with the petitioner on 26.06.1997. While so, the husband of the respondent died in a road accident, which occurred on 19.02.2005.

The respondent, as a nominee under the said policy, has preferred vide a claim after the death of her husband. The petitioner letter, dated 04.05.2005, informed the respondent that the said long term Policy was cancelled with effect from 16.04.2002 as a policy decision and repudiated the claim of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed C.C.No.64 of 2005 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Tirupathi (for short, ‘the vide District Forum’) and the same was dismissed order, dated 08.02.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed F.A.No.417 of 2006 before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the State Vide Commission’). impugned order, dated 24.09.2009, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the order, dated 08.02.2006, passed by the District Forum and the petitioner was directed to pay the assured sum with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.3,000/-, to the respondent. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the respondent’s husband has taken a long term Insurance Policy with the petitioner on 26.06.1997 and only a single premium was paid, that too, at the time of taking the policy. The petitioner has cancelled the said policy with effect from 16.04.2002 and the respondent’s husband had expired on 19.02.2005. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that when the policy itself was discontinued with effect from 16.04.2002, the question of paying the sum assured under the said policy would not arise. This fact was not properly appreciated by the State Commission and the State Commission has allowed the subject F.A. preferred by the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay the sum assured.

Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that pursuant to the order, dated 04.03.2010, passed by this Court in W.P.MP.No.6122 of 2010, the petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount awarded by the State Commission and the respondent has withdrawn the same. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner will not recover the amount, which was already paid to the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the Writ Petition may be closed with an observation that the amount, which was already paid to the respondent, shall not be recovered from the respondent.

7. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned co