BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1711/2014
|
Sri Gavisiddappa,
S/o Hanumanthappa Kabbinad, Age : 47 years,
Occ : Business,
Annapurneshwari Khanawali, Near Court,
Gavimath Road,
Basaveshwar Circle, Koppal, Now r/at Veerabhadreshwar Trading Co., Gavisiddeshwar Gunj,
APMC Yard,
Koppal 583 231.
(By Sri N.P. Singri)
|
……Appellant/s
|
V/s
|
The Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Near Bus Stand,
Koppal 583 231.
(Served absent)
|
..…Respondent/s
|
ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.30.07.2013 passed in CC.No.3/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koppal.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant is that complainant’s wife Smt. Jayashree died on 29.10.2011 The deceased has obtained life insurance policies bearing policy No.664924001 dt.28.11.2009 for an assured sum of Rs.50,000/- and another policy No.665626406 dt.14.06.2011 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The husband of the deceased woman made a claim to the OP, but, the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the non-disclosure of the previous policy No.664924001. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission and after trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal. Heard the arguments.
4. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the deceased has obtained two life insurance policies bearing Nos. 664924001 dt.28.11.2009 for an assured sum of Rs.50,000/- and another policy bearing No.665626406 dt.14.06.2011 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OP Company. It is also an admitted fact that after the death of complainant’s wife, he made a claim to the OP for payment. However, the OP on 30.01.2013 settled the claim towards the policy bearing No.664924001 for a sum of Rs.53,877/- and the same has been remitted to the SB account of the complainant. However, the OP repudiated the claim towards policy No.665626406 on the ground that the non-disclosure of the previous policy No.664924001 and also contended that the life assured while taking the first policy has declared the date of birth as 01.05.1982 stating that she has no school certificate for age proof. While taking second policy, she has submitted her school certificate as age proof wherein her date of birth mentioned as 04.10.1971.
5. Perused the order passed by the District Commission. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint perusing Ex.B-3 for non-disclosure of previous policy No.664924001. The appellant has produced some citations along with written arguments. The appellant relied upon the decision reported III (2021) CPJ 158 (NC), III (2014) CPJ 582 (NC), II (2017) CPJ 463 (NC), II (2017) CPJ 497 (NC), I (2018) CPJ 20A (CN
Back
