State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Senior Divisional Manager, Life ... vs 1.Smt. Mamta Rani Wife Of Late Shiv Kumar ... on 2 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.140 of 2007 Date of Institution: 16.01.2007 Date of Decision: 02.08.2012 1. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar. 2. Senior Branch manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Yamuna Nagar. Appellants (Ops) Versus 1. Smt. Mamta Rani wife of late Shiv Kumar son of late Shri Ramji Lal 2. Miss Sonam daughter of late Shiv Kumar, minor through Smt. Mamta Rani, being real mother and natural guardian of minor Sonam Both residents of Village Chintpur, P.O. Lalhari Kalan, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. Respondents (Complainants) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri K.K. Doda, Advocate for appellants. None for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Case called several times since morning but none put in appearance on behalf of the respondents though the case is fixed for arguments. It is already 1.00 P.M. This appeal relates to the year 2007. As per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaints as well as the appeals are to be decided within the prescribed period. Thus, the non-cooperative attitude of the respondents and their counsel is against the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act. Under these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely and therefore we proceed to decide the same after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and going through the case file.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 04.12.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby complaint filed by the respondents-complainants was accepted by granting following relief:-
.we allow the complaint of complainants and direct the respondents to release the amount under the policy No.172116131 in favour of complainant No.1 along with bonus alongwith accident benefit and release the amount of policy No.172116080 in favour of complainant No.2 along with bonus alongwith accident benefits and pay interest on the amount at the rate of 12% per annum after three months of the death of insured and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that Shiv Kumar (now deceased herein after referred to Life Assured)-husband of respondent-complainant No.1 and father of respondent-complainant No.2 had obtained two Life Insurance Policies of Rs.50,000/- and of Rs.1,00,000/- from the appellants-opposite parties on 25.11.1999. With respect to the policy of Rs.50,000/- respondent-complainant No.1 was nominee and for another policy of Rs.1,00,000/- respondent-complainant No.2 was nominee. The above said policies lapsed due to non-payment of premiums which was due on 28.05.2001 and 28.11.2001. The life assured got revived both the above said policies on 22.05.2002. Unfortunately, the life assured died on 01.07.2002 due to heart attack. The claim submitted by the complainants with respect to the above said policies was repudiated by the opposite parties due to the reason that the finger tips of the life assured were amputated on 13.04.1999 in a fodder machine and he remained admitted in the hospital for the treatment of his finger tips w.e.f. 13.4.1999 to 17.4.1999 but he did not disclose this fact in the proposal forms at the time of taking the policies. Challenging the repudiation of their claims, the complainants invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties on the grounds stated above and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
Heard.
At the very outset it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of purchasing of the policy, the complainant had not disclosed that his finger tips had already been amputated because of having suffered in fodder cutting machine but this fact was not disclosed by the life assured in the proposal form while purchasing the Insurance Policy and therefore nothing is payable to the complainant.
We do not find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. It is not disputed that the life assured died due to heart attack on 01.07.2002. The opposite parties have failed to adduce any evidence to the effect that prior to the date of his death, the life assured was getting treatment heart ailment. The cutting of the finger tips has no proximity with the cause of death of the life assured. Even the amputation of finger tips cannot be treated as concealment by the life assured at the time of obtaining the policy which can be otherwise seen with naked eyes. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the complainant has been wrongly rejected by the officials of the Life Insurance Corporation and we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 02.08.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member