State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
L I C vs Rani Devi on 24 February, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2014/1026 ( Date of Filing : 19 May 2014 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. L I C a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Rani Devi a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 24 Feb 2023 Final Order / Judgement Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Appeal No.1026 of 2014 1- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office at Station road, Amroha, District Amroha through its Branch Manager. 2- Chief Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office at Prabhat Nagar, Meerut. ...Appellants. Smt. Rani Devi w/o Late Roop Lal, R/o Mohalla Badawala, Joya Road, Amroha District, Amroha. ....Respondent. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member. Sri Vikas Agarwal, Advocate for appellant. Sri Arun Tandan, Advocate for the respondent. Date 9.3.2023 JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 29.3.2014 passed by the District Forum, Amroha in complaint case no.146 of 2013.
The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the complainant filed a false and fabricated complaint against the appellants for death claim of policy no.253441286 of Rs.1,05,000.00. This policy was taken by the deceased Roop Lal and mode of premium was half yearly of rs.3,704.00. The life assured took a loan of Rs.11,500.00 from appellants from this policy but not paid their premium as such, policy lapsed on 20.10.2011 and not revived till death. The nominee of the policyholder informed that policy holder died on 13.3.2013 and they filed their claim. During investigation it came to (2) knowledge that the deceased was alcoholic and this habit was concealed. The ld. District Forum passed the following order in the complaint case and accepted the complaint.
"परिवाद आंशिक रूप से विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध 5000/- रू0 (रूपये पांच हजार मात्र) परिवाद व्यय सहित स्वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षीगण परिवादिनी को बीमा की धनराशि अंकन 105000/- रूपये (रूपये एक लाख पांच हजार मात्र) मय 8 प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से मृत्यु दावा अमान्य किये जाने की तिथि 23-10-2013 से वास्तविक वसूली तक भुगतान करें एवं मानसिक कष्ट की क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप में 10000/- रूपये (रूपये दस हजार मात्र) का भुगतान करें। आदेश का अनुपालन एक माह के अन्दर किया जाये।"
The impugned judgment and order is against law and facts and the impugned order has treated that policy was alive at the time of death of the policy holder. The ld. Forum did not take into consideration that the policy can be repudiated on the ground of suppression of chronic alcoholism. In so many case laws, it has been held that withholding any material information while taking insurance policy is fatal, so it is most humbly prayed that the judgment and order be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused all the pleadings, evidence and documents present on record.
After the death of husband of the complainant she alongwith all necessary documents sent his claim to the opposite parties' office which was repudiated on the ground of alcoholism of insured person. The complainant has said that no questions were asked at the time of taking policy. The insured person died after 6 years 5 months from the date of policy. There is no evidence regarding taking alcohol since long. No affidavit of any doctor has been filed. No doctor has been produced in oral evidence to confirm the alcoholism.
(3)The ld. District Forum did not trust the documents filed regarding taking of alcohol as there was no solid evidence against his fact. Thereafter, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint.
We have seen the operative portion of the judgment. The rate of interest has been levied at 8% p.a. In our opinion the rate of interest should be reduced to 6% and rest part of the judgment needs no interference. The appeal deserves to be allowed partially.
ORDER The appeal is allowed partially. The rate of interest is reduced from 8% p.a. to 6% and rest part of the judgment is confirmed.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Visak Saxena) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to record. (Visak Saxena) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Dated March, 9, 2023 Jafri, PA I Court 2 [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena] JUDICIAL MEMBER