State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Mrs. Babita Sovansi on 21 June, 2023
Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023
142 of 2017 Vs.
Mrs. Babita Sovansi
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 12.10.2017
Date of final hearing: 29.05.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 21.06.2023
First Appeal No. 142 / 2017
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Branch Office: New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal
Through Authorized Signatory
Administrative Office (Legal), Divisional Office
C/o Senior Divisional Manager Dehradun
"Jeewan Prakash", Haridwar Road, P.O. Bag No. 7, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
Mrs. Babita Sovansi W/o Mr. Sanjay Sovansi
R/o Sector 8E/512, Baurari New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal
(Through: Sh. Ayush Naithani, Advocate)
Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tehri Garhwal (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 27 of 2016 styled as Smt. Babita Sovanshi Vs. 1 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the impugned life insurance policy No. 272016319 for Rs. 1,50,000/- was purchased in the name of life assured Master Aman Sovansi through his mother, i.e. complainant - respondent with date of commencement of risk being 15.01.2017 (in short 'the said policy'). The said policy lapsed for non-payment of premiums and renewed vide Renewal Form No. 720 dated 31.05.2012 and the appellant agreed to renew the said policy primarily on the basis of the renewal form dated 31.05.2012 submitted with it by the complainant for the minor life assured and on the basis of replies given to the queries asked in the aforesaid renewal form. Under the said renewal form dated 31.05.2012 for the said policy, the minor life assured through his mother - complainant had signed a declaration form. After the renewal of the said policy, installments were regularly paid by the complainant. On dated 19.03.2014, the life assured pertinently died and the claim intimation alongwith policy information was submitted to the office of the opposite party alongwith treatment papers with the documentary evidence, but no insured amount was ever paid to the complainant. Thereafter, a registered notice through advocate was sent to the opposite party - insurance company, even then the claim was not decided, hence the complaint was brought to the District Commission.
3. The opposite party in its written statement, has averred that it is true that the aforesaid policy was revived on 31.05.2012. The renewal form dated 31.05.2012 was signed by the life assured through his mother - complainant wherein it was clearly mentioned that if the averments are found to be untrue, then the contract with respect to the said policy would be null and void. The life assured pertinently died within two years of 2 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi renewal of policy and claim was lodged. The matter was investigated because the lodged claim was within two years being an early claim, wherein it has come to the knowledge that the said policy was got renewed by deliberate concealment of material facts about the ailments of the life assured and there was false declaration given in the renewal form regarding queries asked therein, therefore, the claim was repudiated by detailed letter of dated 31.12.2014. The life assured through his mother has not given the correct position with regard to the queries sought in the renewal form 720 dated 31.05.2012 thereby concealed the true material facts, hence the principle of utmost good faith was breached. There exists no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party - insurance company; the complainant's claim was rejected in time, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record, has passed the impugned judgment and order on dated 07.09.2017 wherein and whereby it is held as under:-
"f"kdk;rdrkZ dh f"kdk;r Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA foi{kh Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe dks vknsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og f"kdk;rdrkZ dks ikWfylh la0&272016319 veu lksoa"kh dh fnukad&19-03-2014 dks chek ikWfylh ds oS/k jgus ds nkSjku e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k chfer /kujkf"k :0 3]00]000@& ¼rhu yk[k :i;s½ cSad dh çpfyr lk/kkj.k C;kt dh nj ls f"kdk;r çLrqr djus dh frfFk ls okLrfod Hkqxrku dh frfFk rd C;kt vnk djsA blds vfrfjDr ekufld o vkfFkZd {kfr ds :0 2]000@& ¼nks 3 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi gtkj :i;s½ o okn&O;; :0 500@&¼ikap lkS :i;s½ vnk djsA"
5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission the appellant - opposite party has preferred the present appeal contending that the claim was lodged by the mother of the life assured within two years and it is being an early claim, the matter was investigated wherein it has come to the knowledge of the insurer that there was deliberate concealment of the material fact about the ailments of the life assured when the said policy was renewed and the false declaration was given in the renewal form regarding queries asked therein. During investigation, it is gathered that prior to getting renewed the said policy vide renewal form dated 31.05.2014, the life assured was suffering from Type 1 Diabetes Mallinus and was under medical treatment, prior to the personal statement regarding his health. The correct position with regard to queries sought in the renewal form 720 dated 31.05.2014 was concealed, hence principle of utmost good faith was breached when the impugned policy was sought to be revived. It is further averred that the complainant (mother of deceased - life assured) was in the knowledge of illness of her child - life assured which material fact was deliberately concealed from the insurer. According to the conditions and privileges of the policy, it is provided that in case it is found that any untrue or incorrect statement is contained in the proposal personal statements, declarations and connected documents or any material information is withheld, then the said policy shall be deemed to be void. In the present case, there has been false and incorrect statement in the renewal form dated 31.05.2012. There being deliberate concealment of state of health hence, the claim was rightly repudiated by a speaking order based on investigation and obtaining of material information. It is further averred that the cause of death is brain hemorrhage at Himalayan Hospital Jolly Grant and the life assured did not die due to injuries sustained in any 4 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi accident but had been a patient of Diabetes Mallinus with primary cause of death being DKA (Diabetic Ketoacidosis) with Type 1 DM (Diabetes Mallinus). Hence, the complainant was not entitled to double the sum assured as death was not accidental. Thus, the District Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction as vested in it and has failed to exercise the jurisdiction in correct manner as required by law. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the complaint should be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the impugned judgment is perfect and according to the law.
7. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the material available on record.
8. It is an admitted fact that the policy No. 272016319 was purchased on dated 15.01.2007 from the appellant - opposite party. It is also undisputed that at the time of commencement of the said policy, the life assured was minor, hence the policy bond of the minor applicant, was issued to the complainant being guardian / mother of the life assured. It is also admitted that the sum insured in the policy was of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the nominee of the deceased - life assured. It is also established and admitted by both the parties that the said policy was discontinued w.e.f. January, 2009 to January, 2012 and the premium amount / installments were not regularly paid by the complainant. It is also admitted that the mother of deceased life assured (minor) has signed the revival policy form and has answered to the queries sought in the revival form 720 dated 31.05.2012. It is also not disputed that the life assured has expired on dated 19.03.2014 and thereafter the intimation about this fact alongwith claim form, policy bond, medical and treatment papers were sent to the appellant - insurance company. As per the contention of 5 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi the appellant - insurer, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 31.12.2014 finding it false and concealment of material facts regarding the queries in the renewal form of the said renewed policy. Learned counsel for the appellant has averred that because the claim form was submitted within two years from the date of renewal of the said policy and the matter was investigated by the insurer, then it was found that the life assured was suffering from Type 1 Diabetes Mallitus and was under
medical treatment prior to the personal statement regarding his health, thereby the correct position was concealed with regard to queries sought in the renewal form 720 dated 31.05.2014. Therefore, on such ground, the claim of the complainant was repudiated.
9. We have perused the repudiation letter dated 31.12.2014 (Paper Nos. 19 & 20), wherein it is narrated as under:-
"It is, therefore, evident that you had made deliberate mis-statements and withheld material information from us regarding his health at the time of getting the policy revived & hence in terms of the Declaration signed by you at the foot of the said Personal statement, the revival of the policy is hereby declared null & void and all moneys that have been paid towards revival of the policy & subsequent thereto belong to us.
Therefore, we have decided to repudiate all liability under the policy on account of the policy being not in force at the time of death."6
Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi
10. The said policy revival form is available on record (paper Nos. 27 & 28 of the appeal record).
11. In clause 4 of the said revival form, there are some questions to be answered in respect of the life assured / life to be assured regarding his health condition of the life assured, wherein in clause No. 4 (a), (b) and (c) answer is written 'No'. According to the declaration clause of the said revival policy, it is specifically mentioned that Smt. Babita Sovanshi do hereby declare that the foregoing statements and answers are true in every particulars and agree and declare that these statements of this declaration alongwith my proposal for Insurance shall be the basis of the contract of assurance / revival of the lapsed policy between me and the Life Insurance Corporation of India and that if any untrue averment to be contained therein the said contract shall be absolutely null & void and all moneys which shall have been paid in respect thereof shall stand forfeited to the Corporation.
12. Thus, the nominee / mother of the life assured has to state all the true and relevant facts regarding the health condition of the life assured and in case if something is found untrue to be contained in the revival form, the said contract shall be absolutely null and void and all money paid shall stand forfeited to the Corporation. Thus, while filling up the revival form on dated 31.05.2012, the mother of the life assured (minor) has disclosed before the insurer that the life assured has not suffered from any illness / disease requiring treatment for a week or more.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to paper Nos. 29 to 31, according to which the life assured was admitted in the Himalayan Hospital, Jolly Grant on dated 14.03.2014 and the nature of the complaint at the time of admission was Multiple episode of (a) Vomiting x 2 days etc. 7 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi Column No. 6 of paper No. 30 'Certificate of Hospital Treatment' has also revealed that at that time of admission in the Hospital the life assured was suffering from DKA (Diabetic Ketoacidosis). According to interpretation, the DKA (Diabetic Ketoacidosis) is a serious complication of diabetes that can be life-threatening. DKA is most common among people with type 1 diabetes. People with Type 2 diabetes can also develop DKA. DKA develops when the body does not have enough insulin to allow blood sugar into the cells for use as energy.
In column No. 7, it is mentioned that the mother and father of the life assured has reported medical history of the life assured and Dr. Amit Rawat has treated the life assured on dated 14.03.2014 and as per the version of the mother and father of the life assured, the medical history of the life assured was as known case of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus for past 3 years 7 months approximately. As per the medical certificate (column No. 10) the life assured was also admitted and discharged from the hospital in August, 2010. Thus, as per the medical certificate, the life assured has pertinently admitted in the hospital and was discharged in August, 2010. The Medical Attendant Certificate (paper No. 31 of the appeal file) has also shown that the life assured died on 19.03.2014 at 1:40 p.m. in Himalayan Hospital Jolly Grant and as per the medical history, the life assured was suffering from the disease Multiple Acute brain infarcts, DKA Type 1 DM and secondary Multiple Acute Brain infarcts and the patient was suffering from disease past 3 years 7 months approximately from his death.
14. The insurance company has also submitted some papers which bear paper Nos. 21 to 24 of the appeal record, according to which the date of admission of the life assured in the Himalayan Hospital Jolly Grant is 14.03.2014 and the date of his death is 19.03.2014. The main complaint was Multiple episodes of vomiting x 2 days. In the said Death Summary, it is specifically written by the Department of Pediatrics, 8 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi Himalayan Institute Hospital that the child was apparently well 2 days back when he developed vomiting which was sudden in onset, 15-20 episodes per day, non-projectile, non-billons, non-blood stained, watery containing food particles. The past history of the child was diagnosed as a case of Type 1 DM in Aug, 2010. Since then child was taking subcutaneous insulin regularly. Thus, as per the past history of the life assured, he was consuming subcutaneous insulin regularly since August, 2010 till the date of his death. The contents mentioned in the said report are not rebutted by the complainant - respondent (guardian) during course of the arguments in the appeal. There is also a certificate of Dr. Vipin Vaish dated 06.09.2014 (paper No. 22 of the appeal record) which is reproduced as under:-
"This is to certify that Master Aman Sovansi 4½ years S/o Mr. Sanjay Sovansi R/o Sector 8E/512 Borari, New Tehri was diagnosed as "Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus". He was started on intermittent insulin therapy on 25.08.2010."
15. As per the medical certificate, the life assured has started interpreted insulin therapy from 25.08.2010 because he was the patient of DKA. There is also a medical prescription dated 25.08.2010, wherein the life assured has shown to consume insulin.
16. Thus, the medical papers submitted on behalf of the insurance company have clearly transpired that the life assured was suffering from Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (DKA) and was under medical treatment since August, 2010 and was started intermittent insulin therapy. If the life assured was suffering from DKA since August, 2010, then it is fully in the 9 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi knowledge of the mother of the deceased - life assured that his child was suffering from DKA and the act of deliberately concealment of such material facts in response to the queries in the renewal form for getting the revival of said policy and wrong answers given by the nominee / mother of the life assured was not justified. If the correct answer would have been provided, then the case would be different and the policy in question would not be revived.
17. Thus, it is proved that the material fact regarding pre-existing disease of the deceased - life assured was concealed while renewing the said policy in question on dated 31.05.2012 and the true answers with regard to the queries sought in the renewal form No. 72 dated 31.05.2012 were not given, hence the principle of utmost good faith was breached, when the policy in question was sought to be revived.
18. Now the question arises as to whether it is mandatory to mention the pre-existing disease while revival of the policy or not.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the following case law, which are as under:-
(1) LIC of India Vs. Kanta Rani, II (2006)
CPJ 284 (NC)
(2) Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. C.
Venkataramudu, II (2014) CPJ 190 (NC)
(3) Maya Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corpn. of
India, III (2011) CPJ 43 (NC)
(4) Dineshbhai Chandarana & Anr. Vs. Life
Insurance Corporation and Anr., 2011 (1)
CPR 63 (NC)
10
Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023
142 of 2017 Vs.
Mrs. Babita Sovansi
(5) Revision Petition No. 2271 of 2011, Smt. Phoola Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, decided on 29.08.2016 (6) Revision Petition no. 914 of 2019, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sosan, decided on 08.01.2020 (7) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma and Anr., decided on 16.09.2022 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun
20. In the case of LIC of India Vs. Kanta Rani (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that life assured has bone marrow done in PGI and was having recurrent fever and was anaemic since 1993 and this fact was not disclosed at the time of revival of policy. Thus, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-
"Aforesaid certificate of treatment prepared on the basis of case summary would indicate that assured had undergone bone marrow at PGI in 1993 and was having recurrent fever and was anaemic since 1993 that his final diagnosis was Pertal hypertumia and bone marrow aplasia. Indisputably, at the time of any of the two revivals the facts as disclosed in aforesaid certificate were not disclosed by the assured. Ahmedunnisa Begum's case (supra) supports the contention of Mr. Mittal that revival of a policy is a new contract.11
Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi Petitioner had thus, rightly repudiated the claim by the letter dated 05.02.1997."
Thus, the above cited case law is applicable to the case in hand that when the policy is revived, then the contract becomes a new contract and all the true facts should be disclosed in the revival form of the policy.
21. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. C. Venkataramudu (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-
"Therefore, we are of considered view that, under the terms and conditions of the said policy, it was the duty of the proposer to give correct answers to all the questions, in the proposal form with regard to state of health, as the contract of insurance, unlike other contracts, is based on utmost good faith, and in the event of any false statement or concealment of material facts, by the proposer /life assured, the same is rendered, null and void, ab initio. The sole responsibility of filling complete proposal form, is on the proposer. It is also the responsibility of the proposer to read and understand the forms, before signing the same."
22. In the case of Maya Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corpn. of India (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-
12Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithoolal Nayak Vs. LIC of India AIR 1962 SC 814 and in a number of other cases, has held that an insurance policy is an agreement in utmost good faith between the insurer and insuree and any breach of this agreement by suppressing material facts on the part of insuree would result in repudiation of the claim by the insurer. This case is squarely covered by the above judgments."
23. In the case of Dineshbhai Chandarana & Anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation and Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-
"A contract of life insurance is based on the principle of uberrima fide (utmost good faith) on the part of life assured. When an information on a specific aspect is asked for in the proposal form, an assured is under a solemn obligation to make a true and full disclosure of the information on the subject which is within his knowledge."
24. In the case of Smt. Phoola Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-
"7. From the factual position brought on record, it is very clear that the petitioner/complainant stated in the claim form No. 3816 that the deceased was suffering from diabetes for the last 22 13 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi years. A perusal of the copy of the proposal form, however, indicates that the insured did not disclose this fact at all, while filling the proposal form, rather he declared that he was not suffering from any disease and that he had not got any treatment for more than one week during the last five years. It is very clear, therefore, that the contention of the OP LIC that the deceased had made a material suppression of information about his health condition, is true.
8. While passing the impugned order, the State Commission have rightly relied upon the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2009) 8 SCC 316, in which it was stated that the assured was under a solemn obligation to make a true and full disclosure of information about his health condition. It has also been mentioned in the said order that the OP was fully justified in repudiating the insurance contract, if there was clear suppression of material facts in regard to the health of the insured. In reply to the revision petition, also the OP, LIC have referred to a number of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission in which the same issue had been discussed, saying that a contract of 14 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi insurance was a contract of utmost good faith and it was the duty of the insured to make true disclosure in the proposal form about his health condition.
9. Further, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.C. Chacko and another Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 321, that a deliberate wrong answer which has a great bearing on the contract of insurance, if discovered, may lead to the policy being vitiated in law.
11. Based on the discussion above, it is held that the claim has been rightly repudiated by the OP-LIC on the ground of suppression of material information about his health condition by the insured. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, does not suffer from any material illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error of any kind. There is no merit in this revision petition, therefore, and hence, the order passed by the State Commission is upheld. The present petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs."
25. In the case of SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sosan (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-
15Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi
"26...............It is standard practice for the insurer to set out in the application a series of specific questions regarding the applicant's health history and other matters relevant to insurability. The object of the proposal form is to gather information about a potential client, allowing the insurer to get all information which is material to the insurer to know in order to assess the risk and fix the premium for each potential client. Proposal forms are a significant part of the disclosure procedure and warrant accuracy of statements. Utmost care must be exercised in filling the proposal form. In a proposal form the applicant declares that she / he warrants truth. The contractual duty so imposed is such that any suppression, untruth or inaccuracy in the statement in the proposal form will be considered as a breach of the duty of good faith and will render the policy voidable by the insurer. The system of adequate disclosure helps buyers and sellers of insurance policies to meet at a common point and narrow down the gap of information asymmetries. This allows the parties to serve their interests better and understand the true extent of the contractual agreement.
16
Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023
142 of 2017 Vs.
Mrs. Babita Sovansi
The finding of a material
misrepresentation or concealment in
insurance has a significant effect upon both the insured and the insurer in the event of a dispute. The fact it would influence the decision of a prudent insurer in deciding as to whether or not to accept a risk is a material fact. As this Court held in Satwant Kaur (supra) "there is a clear presumption that any information sought for in the proposal form is material for the purpose of entering into a contract of insurance". Each representation or statement may be material to the risk. The insurance company may still offer insurance protection on altered terms."
26. In the case of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma and Anr. (supra), this Commission has held that as under:-
"(14) in the case of Shri Ram Life Insurance Company vs. K. Viraja, Revision Petition No. 434 of 2017, decided on 15.01.2020, the Hon'ble National Commission has held that insurance contracts are governed by the principle of "UBERRIMA FIDE' and the proposer applying for insurance is expected to correctly furnish all the material information regarding his health, habits, family history, personal medical history, income etc. Policy 17 Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi holder failed to disclose his pre-proposal health ailment of Hypertension.
Accordingly, the order of the State Commission was set aside and the complaint was dismissed."
27. The principles as laid down in the above-mentioned case law, are fully applicable.
28. In the above scenario, we are of the definite opinion that the complainant - respondent has concealed the facts about his child's pre- proposal health ailment from the appellant - insurance company, thereby the nominee - respondent has breached the terms and conditions of the policy.
29. We also hold that the learned District Commission has wrongly awarded the insured amount to the complainant - respondent without appreciating the evidence and facts available on record and ignored the fact that the child of the complainant - respondent was suffering from disease prior to the insurance policy and has not disclosed disease of the life assured at the time of renewal of policy, thereby the learned District Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction vested in it and has acted upon with the illegality and infirmity, hence, the impugned judgment and order is perverse. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
30. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
18Appeal No. Life Insurance Corporation of India 21.06.2023 142 of 2017 Vs. Mrs. Babita Sovansi
31. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2017 is hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeal.
32. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant, be released in favour of the appellant.
33. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this judgment be sent to the District Commission concerned for record and necessary information.
34. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 21.06.2023 19