State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. vs Smt.Savitri Devi on 5 September, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR FiRST APPEAL NO: 748/2012 Axis Bank Ltd. Through Director, Off. Trishul 3rd floor,Opp.Samartheshwar temple,Alis Bridge, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) & ors. Vs. Jaitaram Meena s/o Sh.Shravan Meena,r/o Aalunda, Ghunawat, Tehsil Dausa, Distt. Dausa & ors. Date of order 05.09.2012 Before: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashok Parihar- President Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra- Member
Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member Mr.Ravi Sharma and Mr.Jitendra Singh Rathore counsel for the appellants Respondent-complainant present in-person BY THE STATE COMMISSION The appeal is directed against the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur IInd Jaipur by which the appellants have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the respondents - complainants for mental agony and compensation 2 alongwith Rs. 5000/- as other expenses. However, the complainants were also directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.44,000/- due as against loan.
After hearing both sides, we have carefully gone through the material on record.
The District Forum on the basis of evidence and material available on record came to a finding that only Rs. 44,000/- was due as against loan amount. However, much prior to that the appellants without any authority of law had seized the vehicle of the respondents- complainants and further sold the same in auction. The District Forum has duly considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the National Commission on the point in issue . As such so far as findings of the District Forum are concerned, we find no error or illegality in the same however, in our opinion the compensation awarded by the District Forum in respect of the present case appears to be excessive.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 20.03.2012 passed by the District Forum Jaipur IInd Jaipur is modified to the extent that the appellants shall pay Rs. 1(one ) lac to the respondents- complainants as compensation out of which the appellants shall be at liberty to deduct the amount of Rs.44,000/- due as against loan. The remaining amount as ordered above be paid to the respondents within thirty days.The appellants however, shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by them before the District Forum in the present appeal.
Member Member President nm BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR FiRST APPEAL NO: 886/2012 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., First Floor, Mehra Building ,Jaipur Road, Ajmer, through Branch Manager Vs. Smt.Savitri Devi Sharma w/o Shri Niraj Kumar Sharma r/o 542, Bhopo ka Bada, Ward no.52, Police Line,Ajmer Date of order 05.09.2012 Before:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashok Parihar- President Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra- Member Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member Mr.Vishal Jain counsel for the appellant BY THE STATE COMMISSION The husband of the respondent-complainant took an insurance policy of Rs. 3,90,000/- after depositing the premiums. However, the insured in the present matter died on 18.04.2009. The claim of the respondent-complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company only on the ground of mis-representation and concealment of earlier disease and treatment taken. It has been 2 alleged that as per investigation report the insured was a chain smoker and used to consume alcohal also and had taken treatment of heart in the hospital. Though some documents of concerned hospital in regard to treatment of the insured had been submitted however, neither the investigation report has been submitted nor any documents so submitted before the District Forum have been proved as has also been noticed by the District Forum in the impugned order dated 25.04.2012 directing the appellants to make the payment of Rs.3,90,000/- to the respondent-complainant alongwith interest and Rs. 2000/- as expenses.
In a number of cases the Hon'ble National Commission as also the State Commission has observed that in such matters of deliberate concealment and mis-representation in regard to previous disease and treatment taken before submitting the proposal form, the burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove the above allegations. In the present case the appellants have failed to discharge the burden of proving the above allegations on the basis of which the insurance claim has been repudiated and has filed reply to the complaint before the District Forum in a very casual manner.
Even otherwise with the fast growing business competition among the Insurance Companies unhealthy practices develop to get maximum benefits and profits. It is not a case of a businessman, trader or an educated employed person but that of a common poor man. He puts his hard earned small savings in such schemes with a hope and aspiration that in case of accident or death he or his family shall get some immediate financial assistance but in most of the cases he is left cheated when his claim is rejected with just a stroke of pen that he concealed some 3 material facts at the time of signing proposal form or the claim was not properly submitted before the insurance company. That apart the agent of the company is required to explain all the details and conditions of the insurance policy sought by the customer. A common man is not supposed to know all the niceties and technicalities of law. Once accepting the premium and having entered into an agreement without verifying the facts, the insurance company cannot riggle out of the liability merely by saying that the contract was made by misrepresentation and concealment. The insurance policies should not be issued and repudiated in such a casual mechanical manner. The policy entails the liability on both sides. It is rather exploitation of the customer and more or less fraud on the public. Such practice should be strongly depricated.
Since the District Forum on the basis of evidence and material available on record has used proper discretion in granting appropriate relief to the respondent, we find no justification in interfering with the findings and discretion used by the District Forum in the present appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly as having no merits. The compliance of the order of the District Forum may now be made within 30 days. The appellants however, shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by them before the District Forum in the present appeal.
Member Member President nm