National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Life Insurance Corportaion Of India & ... vs Nita Bhardawaj on 21 January, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2958 OF 2008 (From the order dated 01.11.2007 in Appeal No.334 of 2006 of the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla) 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Northern Zonal Office Jeevan Bharti, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001 2. Life Insurance Corporation of India Through its Divisional Manager Shimla 3. Life Insurance Corporation of India Through its Branch Manager Branch Office Nurpur Himachal Pradesh Petitioners/Opp. Parties (OP) Versus Nita Bhardawaj W/o Late Sh. Ravinder Bhardwaj H.P. Agro Complex, Jachh, PO Jassur, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra H.P. Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 21st January, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OP against the order dated 01.11.2007 passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 334/06 LIC of India & Ors. Vs. Nita Bharadwaj by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondents husband Ravinder Bharadwaj obtained insurance policy for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Complainants husband expired on 13.6.2004 and complainant being nominee submitted her claim before the OP/petitioner which was repudiated illegally. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that deceased Ravinder Bharadwaj suppressed material facts regarding pre-existing disease while filling the proposal form. It was further alleged that prior to obtaining policy, Ravinder Bharadwaj was suffering from jaundice in the year 2003 and this fact was not disclosed; hence, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay policy amount along with 6% p.a. interest from the date of complaint till realization and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that deceased while filling proposal form suppressed previous disease fraudulently and petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim; even then, learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. It is not disputed that Ravinder Bharadwaj husband of the complainant obtained policy from OP/petitioner w.e.f. 24.3.2004. As per admission in paragraph 5 of the complaint, husband of the complainant suffered minor jaundice in January, 2003 and was fully recovered in February, 2003 and at the time of policy, he was having good health, as there was no sign of jaundice on 24.3.2004. Perusal of proposal form clearly reveals that petitioner replied as under:
(b) Have you ever been admitted to any hospital or - No Nursing home for general check-up, observation treatment or operation?
(c) Have you remained absent from place of work - No on grounds of health during the last 5 years?
(d) Are you suffering from or have you ever suffered - No from ailments pertaining to Liver Stomach, Heart, Lungs, Kidney, Brain or Nervous System?
6. As per certificate of employer Annexure P2 deceased was on medical leave from 3.1.2003 to 10.2.2003 for a period of 39 days. Deceased suppressed fact of 39 days medical leave as well as fact of jaundice which is ailment pertaining to liver and in such circumstances, on account of suppression of material disease, petitioner has not committed any error in repudiating claim. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (2008) I SCC 321 P.C. Chacko and Another Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, R.P. No. 3848 of 2007 LIC & Anr. Vs. Smt. Kempamma decided on 24.1.2013, R.P. No. 4875 of 2012 Usha Rani & Anr. Vs. LIC & Ors.
decided on 5.2.2013 and R.P. No. 2722 of 2008 LIC of India Vs. Smt. Gurvinder Kaur decided on 30.5.2013 by me in which it was held that it was obligatory on the part of insured to give correct answers at the time of obtaining insurance policy and as insured suppressed material facts regarding disease and medical leave and gave false answers, OP has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim of the complainant.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on 2007 CPJ (III) 319 (NC) LIC Vs. Sajida Bagum and I (2007) CPJ 275 (NC) LIC of India Vs. Tajalben Kananbhai Patel in which it was held that suppression of common cold/fever not at all relevant and when OP- Doctor examined and certified insured keeping good health at date of issuance of policy, claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of suppression of material facts. We do not agree with the view expressed in these citations in the light of revision petitions decided by me earlier on this point in the light of Honble Apex Court judgment in P.C. Chackoo & Anr.
(supra) case.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that as there was no nexus between the jaundice and cause of death of insured, claim should not have been repudiated by the OP. This argument is also devoid of force because assured was under an obligation to give correct answers pertaining to his health at the time of issuance of policy and it is immaterial whether cause of death had any nexus or not with the disease suffered and suppressed by the insured. Respondent has also not placed any document on record to ascertain cause of death of the insured. In such circumstances, we may come to the conclusion that petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim on account of suppression of previous disease and treatment.
9. In the light of above discussion, we come to the conclusion that learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and revision petition is liable to be accepted and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that complainant has already received payment after the State Commissions order.
Merely because payment has been received by the complainant in pursuance of dismissal of appeal, revision petition cannot be dismissed.
11. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 1.11.2007 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 334 of 2006 LIC & Ors. Vs. Nita Bharadwaj is set aside and complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k