State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Rajiv Arora vs Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 9 February, 2016
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.66 of 2013
Date of Institution: 19.06.2013.
Date of Decision: 09.02.2016.
Shri Rajiv Arora 7-Joshi Colony, Amritsar-143001.
.....Complainant.
Versus
Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, Eminent Mall, 3rd Floor,
10 Mall Road, Amritsar, through its Brach Manager.
....Opposite Party
Consumer complaint under Section
17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act,
1986
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri H.S. Guram, Member Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate For the opposite party : Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate ................................................ J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Complainant Rajiv Arora has instituted this complaint under Section 17(1) (a) (i) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short "the Act") against the opposite party (to be referred as OP) on the averments that his wife Priti Arora purchased life insurance policy bearing no.10756984 from OP on 16.05.2007. She was proprietor of M/s Arora Embroidery, Amritsar and was income tax assessee and qualified as graduate lady. She was assured in the above policy for a sum of Rs.49,50,000/- with critical illness rider and a term insurance rider of Rs.10 lakhs against annual premium of Rs.1,24,037/-. She Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 2 appointed the complainant as nominee under the policy. The life assured Priti Arora died on 22.08.2007. She was also insured for her life with ICICI Prudential and with Life Insurance Corporation of India. The complainant received claims from ICICI Prudential and from Life Insurance Corporation of India amounting to Rs.1 lakh and Rs.2,28,200/- respectively of above her said policies. The OP vide letter dated 29.07.2010 requested the complainant to provide documents for processing the claim and they were duly supplied by complainant, vide registered post dated 13.08.2010 to OP. The correspondence took place between the complainant and OPs, vide letters dated 21.10.2010, 09.11.2010, 15.03.2011 and 14.06.2010, besides telephonic talks to its Head Office of OP at Chennai. The OP repudiated the insurance claim stating that the insured had cardiac problem diagnosed on 15.11.2006 before obtaining the insurance policy. The insurance claim was repudiated by OP on the ground of mis-statement of facts by the insured, while obtaining the insurance policy on16.05.2007. The insured declared in proposal form that he was not suffering from any serious illness and was never admitted in any hospital for any treatment, except for casual and routine complaints, as an outdoor patient. The document for rejecting the insurance claim of the complainant by OP is the record of Private Lab namely Nijjar Scan and Diagnostic Centre, where the insured went for medical checkup in the month of November 2006. An ailment can suddenly manifest due to many factors and life assured was not a chronic heart patient, Hypertension and conservative Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 3 management thereof. Oral medication cannot be said to be termed as heart ailment of the patient. At the time of taking the insurance policy, insured had undergone medical tests like ECG, blood tests and TMT etc. conducted by the OP. It was the only aspect whereon the insurance policy was granted. Grade four tests are conducted in case the insured is between the age of 31 to 40 years and has to be insured for a sum upto Rs.50 lakhs. The tests conducted on the insured were including MRI, blue profile, ECG, MSU and TMT. The OP has erroneously repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant. The complainant has, thus, prayed that OP be directed to release the assured amount of Rs.49,50,000/- alongwith with bonus and further to release the term insurance rider claim of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses and further prayed for claiming interest @18% per annum thereupon.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is barred by time. Life assured Priti Arora died on 22.08.2007 and claim under the policy was finally repudiated on 30.11.2010 and present complaint has been filed after more than two years from the date of repudiation of insurance claim and is barred by time. The complaint is alleged to be false and frivolous under Section 26 of the Act. It was further averred that Priti Arora life assured concealed the material facts about her above previous ailment at the time of getting the insurance policy from the OP. Life assured was already suffering from Ischemic heart Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 4 disease, left ventricular failure as well as Pulmonary arterial hypertension since 15.11.2006, as per the report issued by the Nijjar Scan and Diagnostic Centre and further for the said treatment, life assured was admitted in Escorts Heart & Super Speciality Institute, Amritsar from 17.11.2006 to 20.11.2006 and was regularly getting the treatment before getting the insurance policy on 16.05.2007. The death of life assured was reported to Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Amritsar and it was found that death of life assured took place due to heart failure as a result of dilated cardio myopathy. The hospital documents corroborate this fact that life assured was a heart patient, when she took the insurance policy. The non-disclosure of above previous ailment was a material fact for issuance of policy by the OP and it must have been disclosed by the insured when she took the policy. The OP could not have issued the policy, if it had the knowledge about the same. The Contract of Insurance is uberrima fides based on utmost good faith and insured is under an obligation to make true and full disclosure of statement within his knowledge and the repudiation of the claim is, thus, justified for non-disclosure of material facts. The non-disclosure of 'Cardiac Problem and Pulmonary arterial hypertension' by life assured Priti Arora for which she was getting treatment since November, 2006 was a significant material fact, which could have affected the decision of OP company in accepting the proposal form for insurance. The life assured gave negative answers to the questionnaire, vide questions no.54(a) and 54(t) to the effect that Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 5 whether she was suffering from any heart attack, heart murmur and other heart/blood vessel disorder. She categorically replied it in negative. The OP averred that on account of concealment of above pre-existing ailment by life assured before taking the policy, the Contract of Insurance stood vitiated. Any contract which is vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the consent of party is voidable under Section 19 of the Contract Act. The proposer is supposed to disclose all material information while filling up the proposal form. On merits, this fact was admitted by the OP that Priti Arora obtained the insurance policy from OP on 16.05.2007. It was pleaded that she concealed her heart ailment, while taking the insurance policy. She took the policy and died on 22.08.2007 just after three months from taking the policy. It was further averred that fact of nomination of complainant is matter of record. Being early claim, the matter was marked for investigation to Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Private Limited by OP. During investigation, it was found that Priti Arora life assured was already suffering from Ischemic heart disease, left ventricular failure as well as Pulmonary arterial hypertension, since 15.11.2006, as per the report issued by the Nijjar Scan and Diagnostic Centre and further for the treatment of said heart ailment, life assured was remained admitted in Escorts Heart & Super Speciality Institute, Amritsar from 17.11.2006 to 20.11.2006. It was further pleaded that complainant has wrongly stated that claim was repudiated on 20.06.2011, just to cover the limitation. The OP repudiated the insurance claim on 30.11.2010. It Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 6 was denied that life assured Priti Arora went to Nijjar Scan and Diagnostic Centre for normal checkup only. It was further pleaded that mother of deceased Priti Arora sent a letter to the answering OP disclosing that life assured Priti Arora died under mysterious circumstances and was ill treated by her husband and by her in- laws. She further disclosed that her daughter was getting treatment of heart disease and complainant and his family took the insurance policy of huge amount in her name with a planning by suppressing the heart ailment of her daughter. The answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.C-A & C-B alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-29 and closed the evidence. As against it OP, tendered in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Ex.C-A is the affidavit of complainant. Ex.C-1 is the copy of Endowment Plan (Regular) (Policy Schedule). It has proved that life assured Priti Arora was of 30 years of age at the time of taking the policy and she appointed above Rajiv Arora as nominee aged about 41 years. The date of commencement of it is recorded in it as 13th July 2007 and date of birth of life assured is recorded in it as 9th March 1977. The sum assured was of Rs.49,5000/- in above said policy. The critical illness rider was of Rs.10 lakhs and term benefit rider was of Rs.10,00,000/- Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 7 as per policy in question. Ex.C-2 is the death certificate of Priti Arora life assured proving that she died on 22.08.2007, which has been issued by Municipal Corporation Amritsar. Ex.C-3 is the copy of letter dated 20.06.2011 by OP with regard to reference to email dated 14th June 2011 regarding non-receipt of death claim. Ex.C-4 is the copy of letter dated 30.11.2010 addressed to complainant Rajiv Arora by OP regarding repudiation of the insurance claim on the ground that life assured Priti Arora submitted false answers to questions no.54(a) and 54(t) in proposal form. She specifically replied in negative under the query as to whether she underwent any treatment for chest pain, high blood pressure, heart attack, heart murmur, other heart/blood vessel disorder. She categorically gave the reply in negative. Ex.C-5 is the copy of intimation to Rajiv Arora by Life Insurance Corporation of India regarding sending cheque of Rs.2,28,200/- and Ex.C-6 is the copy of cheque dated 16.03.2012. Ex.C-7 is the copy of letter dated 26.07.2012 from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance to Rajiv Arora to the effect that they have honored the insurance claim in favour of complainant and sent the amount of Rs.1 lakh towards full and final settlement of the claim. Ex.C-8 is the document of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company. Ex.C-9 is the copy of letter dated 13.08.2010 addressed to Executive Claims of OP by Rajiv Arora and Ex.C-10 is the postal receipt thereof. Ex.C-11 is the copy of another letter dated 20.10.2010 from Rajiv Arora to OP regarding settlement of the insurance claim and Ex.C-12 is the copy of postal receipt thereof. Ex.C-13 is copy of another letter dated 15.03.2011 in this Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 8 regard and Ex.C-14 is the copy of postal receipts thereof. Ex.C-15 is copy of another letter dated 09.11.2010 by Rajiv Arora to OP in this regard. Ex.C-16 is the copy of legal notice sent by complainant to OP on 14.06.2011 and Ex.C-17 are the postal receipts thereof. The complainant stated in legal notice Ex.C-16 that with reference to OP letter dated 30.11.2010 sent to him, vide their letter reference no.LT/21/03/11/308 dated 26.03.2011. The complainant stated that he noted the contents of letter dated 30.11.2010 with utter disappointment regarding repudiation of death claim of Priti Arora in an arbitrary manner. Ex.C-18 is the copy of telephone bill in the name of Surinder Kumar Arora. Ex.C-19 is the copy of post mortem report of Priti Arora dated 23.08.2007. Ex.C-21 is the report of Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar stating that after going through the histopathology report, it is found that cause of death in their opinion of Priti Arora was on account of heart failure, as a result of dilated cardiomyopathy, which is sufficient to cause of death in ordinary cause of nature. Ex.C-22 is the copy of letter dated 24.07.2010 from Rajiv Arora to OP regarding submitting the documents. Ex.C-23 is the copy of claim form B-Medical Attendant Certificate issued by Dr. S.C. Manchanda of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi with regard to Priti Arora and she was diagnosed as dilated cardiomyopathy with severe heart failure. Ex.C-24 is the receipt of premium of Rs.1,24,037/- issued by OP in the name of life assured Priti Arora. Ex.C-25 is the copy of Color Doppler Echocardiography issued by Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 9 Nijjar Scan & Diagnostic Centre dated 15.11.2006 with regard to life assured Priti Arora. The conclusion of this report is dilated ventricles and atria. Severe degree of LV global hypokinesis and poor systolic functions with LVEF 26%. Diastolic dysfunction of LV - grade II. Well contractile RV antro-lateral wall. MR grade ¼. TR grade 1/3. Calculated RV and PAPSP 49mmHg (Pulmonary arterial hypertension. Structurally normal AV and semilunar valves. No intracardiac Echogenic mass. No evidence of mitral valve prolapse. Intact septa, Small posterior pericardial effusion. Ex.C-27 is the copy of echocardiogram of life assured issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital New Delhi. The final impression is recorded in it as "Global LV hypokinesis. Severely reduced LV systolic function. Good RV systolic function. LVEF-16%, Mild TR. PASP = 46mmHg. Mild PAH+Moderate MR. It was issued by Dr. S.C. Machanda of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. The above referred documents have been relied upon by the complainant.
5. The OP relied upon affidavit of Atul Dutta, Authorized signatory of OP Ex.OP-A. Copy of repudiation letter dated 30.11.2010 Ex.OP-1 thereby the death insurance claim of Priti Arora submitted by her nominee/complainant was finally repudiated. Ex.OP-2 is the final report submitted by Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt. Ltd. appointed by OP to look into the genuine claim of the complainant. The investigator found in his report that "the insured got a TMT (of the LA) done, but it appears that the claimant impersonated someone in place of his wife so as to yield a normal Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 10 TMT. By no stretch of imagination, a person having a above pre- existing heart Ischemic disease with left venture failure can have a normal TMT". Ex.OP-3 is the discharge summary of life assured Priti Arora issued by Escorts Heart & Super Speciality Institute, Amritsar. It has proved that Priti Arora was admitted in the Escort Heart & Super Speciality Hospital Amritsar on 17.11.2006 and she was discharged on 20.11.2006. The diagnosis was of dilated cardiomyopathy. Severe LV dysfunction (26%). PAH. Acute Gastritis. This discharge summary Ex.OP-3 has proved that in November 2006 Priti Arora was a known case of dilated cardiomyopathy with severe LV dysfunction (26%). Her echocardiography was done outside on 15.11.2006, which revealed DCM with severe LV dysfunction (26%). She presented with complaint of cough and vomiting for four months associated with breathlessness during second pregnancy period in above said hospital. She was admitted in the hospital for stabilization and further management. Precordial auscultation and other systemic examination was unremarkable. The OP relied upon Ex.OP-3, the discharge summary to the effect that Priti Arora life assured was admitted for heart problem in Escort Heart & Super Speciality Hospital in the year 2006 and she was known case of DCM and acute gastritis. Ex.OP-4 is the copy of Echo Report dated 05.05.2007 conducted by Escorts Heart & Super Speciality Institute recording imaging 'Global biventricular dysfunction. EF by M-mode 18%. FS 8%. By vol 8-10%. No thrombus seen". Ex.OP-5 is the copy of letter sent by mother-in-law Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 11 of complainant and mother of life assured Priti Arora. She brought it to the notice of OP that life assured suffered from heart problem and to encash the death of her daughter, the complainant took the insurance policy fraudulently by suppressing her pre-existing heart ailment. Ex.OP-6 is the report of Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar. Ex.OP-7 is the copy of claim form A, submitted by complainant as nominee of Priti Arora life assured with OP. Ex.OP-8 is the copy of registered notice dated 14.06.2011 sent by the complainant. Ex.OP-10 is the letter of authority.
6. From perusal of above referred evidence on the record, we proceed to decide the controversy in this case between the parties. It was submitted by Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate counsel for the complainant that the proposal form was filled up by Kaushik Chhabra Sales Advisor of OP for Priti Arora life assured and hence, it cannot be said that Priti Arora filled up the proposal form in this case for taking the life insurance policy. Ex.OP-9 is the policy document. The counsel for the complainant strongly relied upon the statement of Kaushik Chabbra before this Commission on 15.04.2015 to the effect that he got one life insurance in favour of Preeti Arora. He stated that he has seen the proposal form on the record Ex.OP-9 and he has not filled up the proposal form Ex.OP-9. He further stated that he has been acquainted with the handwriting of Nishant Khosla and identified his handwriting on Ex.OP-9, the proposal form. The complainant urged before this Forum that the Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 12 proposal form was filled up by Kaushik Chhabra. Kaushik Chhabra denied this fact that he filled up the proposal form and stated that it is the writing of Nishant Khosla. The submission of Sh. Munish Goel counsel for the complainant is that once the proposal form Ex.OP-9 was not filled up by Priti Arora, hence OP cannot take benefit of alleged wrong answers regarding heart ailment of Priti Arora life assured contained in the proposal form. The complainant relied upon law laid down by the National Commission in case "Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Chaitanya Das, Advocate"Volume I 2013 CPJ-492, we find that the cited authority is distinguishable from the fact situation of the case. The policy was of 25 years and not of 16 years. The fact situation of cited authority is that LIC did not examine agent/OP-3 before District Forum, nor did lead any other evidence to show that proposal form was not filled up by OP-3. Herein, the complainant summoned Kaushik Chhabra, but he has not admitted this fact that he filled up the proposal and rather stated that it is the handwriting of one Nishant Khosla. It has appeared on the record that Priti Arora was graduate and income tax assessee also. The proposal form Ex.OP-9 has been signed by Priti Arora. This fact is not disputed before us that the proposal form Ex.OP-9 is signed by Priti Arora in English. Priti Arora supplied her identity proof to OP also in this regard. The Apex Court has held in "Grasim Industries Limited & another Vs. Agarwal Steel" 2010(1) SCC-83 that when document is signed by party; there is a presumption, unless there is proof of fraud, that he has read the document Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 13 properly and understood it. In this case, Priti Arora was graduate and an income tax assessee and she signed the proposal form in English and there is no proof of any fraud established before us. Consequently, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in this authority, we can safely presume that proposal form was properly understood by Priti Arora and then signed it. The National Commission also held in "Met Life India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Pragnaben Rajesh Batunge" 2013(4)CPJ-225 that the deceased had studied upto 8th standard and he affixed his signature in English language. He must be aware of fact, being mentioned by the agent. It was bounden duty of deceased to raise objection and should not have allowed the agent to mention his incorrect educational qualification. Misstatement made by the deceased herein go to root of case and violate basic principle of 'utmost faith'. This authority is directly applicable to the fact situation of the case. Priti Arora life assured was a graduate and an income tax assessee and she was not supposed to have signed the proposal form without raising any objection, in case, it contained incorrect facts, even if it was filled up by the agent on her behalf. We repel the submission of counsel for the complainant that Priti Arora was kept in ignorance and wrong particulars were got filled up by the agent in the proposal form.
7. Once, we have come to this conclusion that Priti Arora understood the contents of proposal form Ex.OP-9 and then signed it. She gave the answers in negative to the questions, as to whether she suffered from any heart ailment or not. The policy in question Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 14 was taken by her on 16.05.2007 with date of commencement 13th July, 2007. She died on 22.08.2007, vide death certificate Ex.C-2. The OP strongly relied upon Post Mortem Report Ex.C-19 of life assured Priti Arora and the report of Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Amritsar to the effect that her death took place due to heart failure, as a result of dilated cardiomyopathy, which is sufficient to cause of death in ordinary cause of nature. The complainant also tendered in evidence the report of two dimension echocardiography of Nijjar Scan & Diagnostic Centre Ex.C-26. This report cannot be said to be erroneous one. It has proved that complainant was already suffering from heart ailment. The OP strongly relied upon the discharge summary issued by Escorts Heart & Super Speciality Institute, Amritsar proving that Priti Arora was admitted in the above hospital on 17.11.2006 and was discharged on 20.11.2006 and she was diagnosed as a case of dilated cardiomyopathy with severe LV dysfunction (26%). PAH. Acute Gastritis. She presented there with complaint of cough and vomiting for four months associated with breathlessness during second pregnancy period. We cannot discard the discharge summary of Priti Arora life assured issued by Escorts Heart & Super Speciality Institute, Amritsar proving that she was admitted there for her heart ailment on 17.11.2006, before taking the policy and she was a known case of dilated cardiomyopathy with severe LV dysfunction (26%) in the year 2006. Her cause of death is proved as a result of dilated cardiomyopathy being heart failure in her young age. The Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 15 counsel for the complainant could not rebut the discharge summary of Priti Arora issued by Escorts Heart & Super Speciality Institute, Amritsar on the record. Even the investigator of Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Private Limited observed in his report Ex.OP-2 that the insurer got a TMT (of the LA) done, but it appears that the claimant got impersonated someone in place of his wife Priti Arora so as to yield a normal TMT test. The submission of counsel for the complainant that tests of life assured were normal, when she was medically examined at the time of taking the policy. Pales into significance as proved by the investigator's report Ex.OP-2 that a lady who suffered heart problem to that extent is not supposed to have given normal TMT test at all. From the Nijjar Scan & Diagnostic Centre's report dated 15.11.2006 coupled with discharge summary of Escorts Heart & Super Speciality Institute, Amritsar Ex.OP-3, Echo report Ex.OP-4 and the report of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi coupled with report of investigator Ex.OP-2, we have reached this conclusion that Priti Arora life assured was already suffering from severe heart ailment in the year 2006. She was aware of her heart ailment, because she remained admitted in Escorts Heart & Super Speciality Institute, Amritsar for treatment of her heart ailment. This finding is, thus, returned by us on the basis of above referred evidence that life assured wife of the complainant was already proved to be a case of heart ailment in the year 2006. She took the policy in the year 2007 and gave false answers in questionnaire no.54(a) and 54(t) in the proposal form. The Contract Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 16 of Insurance stands vitiated on account of concealment of material facts fraudulently by the life assured. The National Commission has held in "Monica Jain Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India"
2015(4)CPJ-16 that failure to disclose all material facts relating to health of assured, it was held that Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim preferred by the complainant. We also find support from the authority of National Commission titled as "Jagdeep Arora Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & others" 2015(3) CPJ-341 wherein, it has been held that if any such information about the medical condition of a person which could influence the mind of a prudent insurer is not disclosed to him, it amounts to suppression of material facts and the insurer is very much within its rights to repudiate the claim. Reference may also be made to law laid down in "M.Obaidur Rahman Vs. Nationa Insurance Co. Limited" 2015(3) CPJ-474 by the National Commission that suppression of pre-existing disease renders the contract of insurance void and repudiation is, thus, justified. We also rely upon law laid down by the National Commission in case "Satyavati Sharma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation" 2013(3) CPJ- 654 that insurance is a contract of trust and it was obligatory on the part of assured to disclose previous disease, treatment etc. Repudiation in case of concealment of material fact is held justified on the basis of law laid down by the Apex Court in "Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited" 2009(4) CPJ-8. We, thus, hold that on account of suppression of material fact Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 17 of previous heart ailment deliberately and treatment thereof by life assured Priti Arora, the Contract of Insurance has rightly been repudiated by the OP.
8. It was further submitted by counsel for the OP that complaint is barred by time, but on this point the submission of counsel for the complainant is that complainant gave legal notice to OP Ex.C-16 on 14.06.2011 and limitation would accrue thereafter only. Ex.C-17 is postal receipt thereof. We do not find any force in the submission of the complainant. The complainant himself admitted in legal notice Ex.C-16 regarding receipt of repudiation letter dated 30.11.2010 from OP. It is, thus, evident that repudiation of contract came to the knowledge of the complainant in the year 2010. Subsequent issuance of legal notice and correspondence sent by the complainant would not extend the period of limitation. On this point, we find support from law laid down in "Panipat Thermal Power Station HPGCL Vs. New India Assurance Co. Limited"
2013(1) CPJ-114 by the National Commission that after repudiating the claim or making some payment as final payment; subsequent correspondence between the parties does not extend the period of limitation. The National Commission has held in "Sehdev Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Limited" 2012(2) CPJ-91 that it is the duty of Consumer Fora to take notice of Section 24-A and go into the facts if complaint is barred by time. Consumer Fora if decides a time- barred complaint on merits, it would be committing an illegality. Even from legal notice of complainant Ex.C-16 coupled with Ex.C-4, Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 18 the repudiation letter, we hold that complainant was fully aware of the repudiation of Contract of Insurance after 30.11.2010 and we find corroboration thereto even from legal notice Ex.C-16 to this fact. The complainant filed the complaint on 19.06.2013 before this Commission. The complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay in this case. We reject the submission of counsel for complainant that limitation would commence from 14.06.2011, when complainant issued legal notice to OP. We hold that limitation to file the complaint would commence after repudiation letter Ex.C-4 dated 30.11.2010 was conveyed to complainant and hence the complaint, which was instituted on 19.06.2013 by the complainant is not within two years from the date of commencement of cause of action. The complaint is, thus, held to be barred by time.
9. In view of our above referred discussions, we have not found any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP in this case. The OP is justified in repudiating the Contract of Insurance on account of deliberate concealment of material fact of previous heart ailment and treatment therefor of life assured Priti Arora, while taking the insurance policy in this case. The complaint is hereby ordered to be dismissed.
10. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 03.02.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
Consumer Complaint No.66of 2013 19
11. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S. GURAM) MEMBER February 09, 2016.
(MM)