ORDER

1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 21.08.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 549 of 2014 in which order dated 24.04.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janakpuri, (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 265 of 2011 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 21.08.2018 of the State Commission.

2.         While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 265/11.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent on 18.12.2018.  Parties filed Written Arguments on 02.11.2023 (Petitioner) and 01.11.2023 (Respondent) respectively. 

4.         Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

(i)        The husband of the Complainant took the insurance policy having policy No. 332130238 from the agent in August, 2007. The agent timely received the premium and delivered receipt, keeping the policy active until February, 2009. The husband of the Complainant died on 17.01.2009 due to severe cold stroke. The agent and LIC officials assured the Complainant that the policy payment would be processed within 3-4 months. The agent completed various formalities to process to claim in March, 2009.

(ii)       The agent demanded Rs.20,000/- for processing the claim, which the Complainant’s family could not afford. On 08.06.2009, the Complainant’s uncle, sent the completed forms and supporting documents to the LIC Manager (Grievance Cell). After no response for two months, the Complainant reported the case to the Insurance Ombudsman and other authorities on 24.08.2009. The Complainant sent a reminder on 04.11.2009 and received a repudiation letter dated 30.09.2009, which was not delivered initially.

(iii)     In view of the foregoing, Complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum and District Forum dismissed the complaint on account of suppression of pre-existing disease by the insured at the time of availing the policy and passed the following order:

“We hold that as there was a suppression of material information of having pre-existing disease by the insured at the time of filing the proposal form the claim was rightly repudiated. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The complaint hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost of litigation.”

(iv)      Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, Complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission where State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

5.         Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 21.08.2018 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:

6.         Heard learned counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

           6.1       In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 5), the petitioner contended that the husband of the petitioner, Shri Samay Singh, a Class IV employee obtained a Life Insurance for a period of 179 months (16 years) to be matured on 08.08.2023. The Premium amount paid was Rs.7,577/-. The premium policy payment was continued till February, 2009. The petitioner’s husband passed away on 17.01.2009 due to bitter cold stroke. The petitioner placed a claim before the