ORDER

1.     This First Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) challenges the order dated 19.01.2018 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in complaint no.372 of 2017 praying to set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to release Rs.25,00,000/- against the claim on account of death of the appellant’s son with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death till realization and Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation expenses apart from any other order as deemed fit.

2.     The brief conspectus of facts in the matter are that the deceased son of the appellant, Manjit Singh, had obtained a Life Insurance Policy from the respondents on 24.11.2014 vide Policy No.17185259 for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The insured, however, expired on 21.02.2015 of natural causes and the complainant being the nominee of the deceased lodged an insurance claim for Rs.25,00,000/- with the respondent. The respondent repudiated the claim vide letter dated 15.07.2015 on the ground that the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) had concealed the information of holding another, previous insurance policy issued to him prior to the policy in question. An appeal before the State Commission filed by the appellant in CC No.372 of 2017 was dismissed on 19.01.2018 upholding the contention of the opposite party/respondent that there had been suppression of material facts at the time of obtaining the policy.

3.     This appeal is based on the contention that there was no suppression of any previous policy and that in case of Life Insurance Policy non-disclosure of any previous policy is not a material fact.

4.     Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Commission in Aviva Life Insurance Vs. Rekhaben Ramjibhai Parmar in RP No.4204 of 2011 which had relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CEO/Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another vs. Rayani Ramayanjneyaulu dated 21.11.2014 which upheld that information regarding previous insurance policy could not be held to be material.

5.     It was also contended that the DLA was not educated or conversant in English and did not understand the contents of the Proposal Form and that the terms and conditions of the policy had not been disclosed to him. The contents were also not explained to the deceased in vernacular i.e. Punjabi language. The evidence of the Legal Manager of the respondent was erroneously accepted by the State Commission, since he packed personal knowledge of the case or was a party or privy to the documents pertaining to the insurance policy in question. The order of the State Commission was stated to be based on conjecture and surmise and was based upon an erroneous conclusion that the deceased had violated the principle of uberrima fides (utmost good faith).

6.     We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material available on record including short synopsis of arguments filed by the learned counsels.

7.     The moot issue in this case pertains to whether the DLA had violated the principle of uberrima fides in not disclosing the existence of a prior insurance policy obtained by him, that was discovered by the respondent during the course of its investigation into the claim which was mandatory in view of the fact that the claim was being made within a period of two years of obtaining the policy. The appellant has not denied the fact that there was another policy obtained by the DLA. It is the contention of the appellant that the non-disclosure of this fact was not material as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod in Civil Appeal No.4261 of 2019, which judgment is stated to pertain to a similar case of claim under the Life Insurance cover policy. It is argued that in this case it had been held that the policy had been obtained based upon a reply in the negative to a similar question and it had b