State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Raksha Devi vs Lic Of India & Anr. on 5 May, 2009
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA Appeal No. 415/2007. Date of Decision 5.5.2009. Smt. Raksha Devi W/o late Sh. Jagmohan Singh, R/o Vill. Kanda, PO Shamathla, Tehsil Kumarsain, Distt. Shimla, HP. ..Appellant. Versus 1. LIC of India, Northern ZO., Jeewan Bharati, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001 through its Zonal Manager., 2. LIC of India, Block No. 14 & 15, SDA Complex, Kasumpti Shimla-9, through its D.M. .Respondents. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Honble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondents Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate vice counsel Mr. Varinder Tajta, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved from the order passed by District Forum Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 7/2004 on 19.6.2007. By means of impugned order, complaint filed by her has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are, that late Shri Jagmohan Singh husband of the appellant was the policy holder in the sum of Rs. 1 lac, under plan term 106/15 (double accident benefit). Date of commencement of this policy was 14.2.1998. He died in May, 1999 due to illness. When claim was lodged by her with the respondents, it was repudiated on the ground that at the time of obtaining insurance, the life assured did not get himself medically examined. With a view to support this stand, further case of the respondents was that his signatures on the proposal form did not tally with those on medical report and ECG. Appellant in this behalf represented to the authorities at Delhi, who also turned down her claim. In this background, she filed complaint alleging that there was deficiency in service. It was dismissed, hence this appeal.
3. While contesting the claim of the appellant before the District Forum below, main thrust on the defence of the respondents was, that the policy had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and impersonation and these questions cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Deceased having purchased 15 years Jeevan Surbhi Policy was admitted.
4. Ordinarily we would have examined the merits of the case and dealt with the submissions of Mr. Chandel learned counsel for the appellant. However for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, we have chosen not to deal with those and leave all questions including those of alleged fraud, misrepresentation as well as impersonation open. Because whether or not the deceased-life assured allegedly having appeared for medical examination before the Medical Officer concerned, the District Forum below should have left this question open. Similarly whether the deceased appeared for his medical examination, or someone else impersonated for him, District Forum below should have directed the appellant-complainant to get the matter adjudicated from an appropriate court of law. Fraud, misrepresentation as well as impersonation are good grounds on which a contract can be lawfully avoided under the Contract Act. These are such matters which cannot be gone into in summary proceedings. In these circumstances, District Forum below was in error in having touched the merits of the case in the light of the material that was produced before it by the parties, including report of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents by the respondents.
In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the complaint out of which this appeal has arisen was not maintainable because disputed and complex questions of fraud, misrepresentation and impersonation in it being involved, as also report of the Government Examiner of Questioned Document there were required to be proved by examination, cross-examination, as well as re-examination of the witnesses on behalf of the parties. Thus while holding that the complaint was not maintainable, the impugned order is set aside while allowing this appeal, and at the same time directing the appellant will be entitled to initiate such action if any as is available to her, of course in accordance with law before a competent court having jurisdiction in the matter for redressal of her grievance. In the event of appellant approaching the Civil Court or any other authority under law, then in such a situation, she will be entitled to claim benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is clarified that respondents will not be entitled to take any advantage/benefit whatsoever from the order of the District Forum below in the event of appellant initiating any legal action before a court of competent jurisdiction.
Appeal is finally disposed of subject to these directions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
Shimla.
5th May, 2009 (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
Karan* President. (Saroj Sharma) Member. (Chander Shekher Sharma) Member.