National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Usha Rani Gupta & Anr. vs Life Insurance Corporation & Ors. on 5 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4875 OF 2012 (From the order dated 30.8.2012 in Appeal No. 137 of 2008 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) 1. Usha Rani Gupta W/o Ishwar Chand Gupta 2. Raksh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ishwar Chand Gupta Both are R/o Kaushik Nagar Jind, Haryana. Petitioners/Complainants Versus 1. Life Insurance Corporation Branch Office Urban Estate, Jind Thr. Authorized officer, Manager Legal, LIC of India, Div. office, Sector 17, Chandigarh 2. Smt. Seema W/o Sh. Rajinder Parshad C/o Mahavir Stores vill. Birta Mor, District Jhapa Nepal. 3. Smt. Manisha W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar R/o Anaj Mandi, Gohana Respondents/OPs BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 5th February , 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 30.8.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 137 of 2008 LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Usha Rani Gupta by which while allowing appeal, set aside order of District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ishwar Chand Gupta husband of petitioner No. 1, father of Petitioner No.2/Complainant/Respondent No.2 & 3/OP Nos. 2 & 3 obtained life insurance policy on 28.4.1998 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from OP No.1/Respondent No.1. Policy lapsed due to non-payment of premium which was revived on 18.6.2003 by making personal statement on that date. Assured died on 5.8.2003 due to heart attack.
Complainants being nominee and legal heirs of the deceased submitted claim to OP No.1 which was repudiated by letter dated 18.12.2003, hence, alleging deficiency in service, filed complaint before the District forum. OP No.1/Respondent resisted claim on the ground of false personal statement made at the time of revival of policy regarding his state of health. Despite the fact that assured was under
treatment since 29.1.2001 for IHD CVA Angina, learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP NO. 1 to make payment along with 10% p.a. interest. OP No. 1 filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.
4. This petition has been filed along with application for condonation of 16 days delay. As there is delay of only 16 days, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay in filing appeal is condoned.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that previous treatment had no nexus with cause of death and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint on the ground of suppression of material fact and false statement, hence, petition may be admitted.
6. Perusal of record reveals that life assured was suffering from IHD CVA Angina for which he had taken treatment from Balaji General and Maternity Hospital, Jind from 29.1.2001 to 8.2.2001. Life assured also remained on earned leave from 14.4.2000 to 10.2.2001 and on medical leave from 11.2.2001 to 29.4.2001 which clearly reveals that even before hospitalisation, life assured was suffering from disease and even after discharge from hospital he had to remain on leave for more than 2 months. At the time of revival of lapsed policy, assured made personal statement regarding his life and made false statement and denied to the fact of treatment for more than a week. When the assured was suffering from the disease for more than a year, it was obligatory on his part to give correct answers at the time of revival of insurance policy and as insured suppressed material facts regarding disease and gave false answers, OP has not committed any deficiency in service in repudiating claim of the complainant. Learned State Commission after citing many judgments of this Commission has rightly come to the conclusion that revival of the insurance policy is a fresh policy because of fresh declaration and personal statement and on account of giving wrong answers to the questions put to him with respect to his state of health, OP cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefits to the complainants.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that assured died due to heart attack and cause of death has no nexus with previous treatment of disease. This argument is devoid of force because assured was under obligation to give correct answers pertaining to his health at the time of revival of lapsed policy whether cause of death has any nexus or not with the disease suffered by life assured.
8. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint. I do not find any infirmity, illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) MEMBER k