State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sunita Rani vs L.I.C. Of India on 11 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1196 of 2006 Date of Institution: 04.07.2006 Date of Decision: 11.08.2010 Smt. Sunita Rani wife of late Shri Naresh Kumar c/o Sh.Gian Chand, R/o House No.1718/1, near Hari Palace, Ambala City. Appellant (Complainant) Versus 1. L.I.C. of India through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, near Vijay Cinema, Ambala City. 2. Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Divisional Office, 489, Model Town, Karnal. ---Respondents (Ops) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member. Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. For the Parties: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Varun Chawla, Advocate for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This is an appeal against the order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala whereby the complaint No.371/2002 filed by the appellant-complainant seeking direction to the respondents-opposite parties to pay the insurable benefits in respect of the Life Insurance Policy obtained by her husband-Naresh Kumar (now deceased) has been dismissed by recording a finding that Naresh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the Life Assured) had concealed true and material information with respect to his state of health while submitting proposal form for obtaining the policy.
It is a case wherein the claim of the complainant with respect to the insurance policy obtained by her husband Naresh Kumar was repudiated by the opposite parties for the reason that as per report submitted by the investigator of the Corporation, the life assured was suffering from Pulm Kochs c Hameoptysis frank and was on Anti-Tubercular T/T Monto-4 before obtained the insurance policy and was treating himself from the Civil Hospital. Challenging the repudiation of her claim the complainant filed the present complaint. The claim of the complainant was resisted by the opposite parties on the ground stated above and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum justified the repudiation of complainants claim and dismissed the complaint.
Hence this appeal.
Heard.
Undisputedly, Naresh Kumar-husband of the complainant had obtained a life insurance policy No.171571266 in August, 1998 for Rs.50,000/-. The life assured did not pay the premium of the above said policy which was due in August, 2000. Unfortunately, the life assured died on 01.10.2000. The complainant submitted claim to the opposite parties. During investigation conducted by the investigator of the Insurance Company, it revealed that the life assured Naresh Kumar was suffering from Pulm Kochs c Hameoptysis frank and was on Anti-Tubercular T/T Monto-4 before obtained the insurance policy. But this fact was not disclosed by the life assured in his personal statement while submitting proposal form dated 24.08.1998 and had given wrong answers to the questions No.11(e) and 11(i), reproduced as under:-
Question Answer 11(e) Are you suffering from or have you ever suffered from diabetes, Tuberculosis, High Blood pressure, Low Blood pressure, Cancer, Epilepsy, Hernia, Hydrocele, Leprosy or any other disease?
No 11(i) What has been your usual state of health?
Good As per medical record gathered from Civil Hospital, Ambala City, the life assured was obtaining treatment for the above said disease.
It is well settled principle of law that the contract of insurance is uberrima fide i.e. based on utmost good faith. The assured is under a solemn obligation to make full disclosure of material facts which may be relevant for the insurer to take into account while deciding whether the proposal should be accepted or not. In the instant case it is established on record that the life assured had not disclosed true facts with respect to the disease suffered by him before submitting proposal form despite the fact that the life assured was having full knowledge of the said disease.
In this view of the matter we feel that there is no error in dismissing the complaint of the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
No merit. Dismissed.
Announced: (Justice R.S. Madan) 11.08.2010 President (Dr. Rekha Sharma) Member (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member