State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Poonam Bishnoi & Another vs Hdfc Standred Life Insurance Company ... on 29 January, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 10 / 2015
1. Smt. Poonam Bishnoi W/o Sh. Arvind Singh Bishnoi
2. Sh. Arvind Singh Bishnoi S/o Sh. Sukhveer Singh Bishnoi
Both R/o 34-B, Balbir Road
Dehradun
......Complainants
Versus
1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited
having its Corporate and Registered Office at
Lodha Excelus, 13th Floor
Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg
Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400011 through its Managing Director
2. HDB Financial Services Limited
A company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956
and registered with the Reserve Bank of India
as a non-banking financial company having its Registered Office at
Radhika, 2nd Floor, Law Garden Road
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009 and Branch Office at
G.M.S. Road, Dehradun through its Branch Manager
3. Smt. Ritika Chauhan (Bishnoi) W/o late Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi
R/o 265, Garhi Cantt.
Dehradun
......Opposite Parties
Sh. R.S. Bajwa, Learned Counsel for the Complainants
None for Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2
Sh. Arjun Singh Bisht, Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 3
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 29/01/2018
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This consumer complaint under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Smt. Poonam Bishnoi along with her husband Sh. Arvind Singh Bishnoi (hereinafter referred to as "complainants") against HDFC Standard Life Insurance 2 Company Limited and Sh. HDB Financial Services Limited, alleging deficiency in service on their part. Although Smt. Ritika Chauhan (Bishnoi) has also been made party to the consumer complaint and impleaded as opposite party No. 3, but no relief has been claimed by the complainants against her and she has been made proforma opposite party.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that late Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi, the deceased son of the complainants, during his lifetime, moved an application with the opposite party No. 2 on 27.09.2013 for grant of loan of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- against property, pursuant to which, the opposite party No. 2 sanctioned loan against property of Rs. 2,52,27,902/- in favour of Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi on 31.10.2013. The said loan carried interest @13.50% p.a. and the tenure of the loan was 10 years. After sanction of the loan, sum of Rs. 2,44,27,902/- was disbursed by opposite party No. 2 on 30.11.2013 in loan account No. 510210 of the borrower. The opposite party No. 2 - finance company obtained three insurance policies from opposite party No. 1
- insurance company under HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Plus Insurance Plan in the name of Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi; Smt. Ritika Chauhan and Smt. Poonam Singh Bishnoi in order to protect the above loan granted to Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi. One of the insurance policies was issued by opposite party No. 1 in favour of Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi for sum insured of Rs. 99,90,249/- on 31.10.2013 and the expiry date of the insurance cover on 30.10.2023. The opposite party No. 2 also got a Health Suraksha Policy (Silver Plan) issued from opposite party No. 1 in the names of Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi and Smt. Ritika Bishnoi valid for the period from 05.12.2013 to 04.12.2015 for insured sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each. Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi obtained personal loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from opposite party No. 2 for purchase of vehicle on 30.11.2013 and the opposite party 3 No. 2 also got the said loan insured by obtaining policy from opposite party No. 1 in the name of Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi.
3. Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi - insured had pain and swelling in his right leg on 17-18.07.2014 and also had breathing problem on 24.07.2014 and he was admitted in Max Super Speciality Hospital, Malsi, Mussoorie Diversion Road, Dehradun on 25.07.2014. The doctor at the said hospital diagnosed that the life assured was suffering from "right lower limb cellulitis with osteomyelitis with septic shock and mods". The life assured underwent surgery of "incision & drainage under LA" on 25.07.2014 in the said hospital and later on, he was shifted to ICU. Unfortunately, the life assured could not survive and breathed his last on 28.07.2014 in the said hospital. The opposite party No. 2 - finance company lodged death claim of the insured in respect of policy obtained for covering the loan account No. 542757 regarding disbursement of loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the life assured. The opposite party No. 1 paid the sum insured under the said policy and the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 4,13,809.05/- was credited in the said loan account on 29.09.2014 and the balance amount was paid to the nominee - opposite party No. 3. Vide letter dated 08.01.2015, the opposite party No. 1 informed the opposite party No. 3 that, "our investigations have established that the life assured was suffering from liver cirrhosis and had undergone treatment for same much prior to the policy issuance. Also, life assured had policies with other insurance companies which was not disclosed in the application dated 31st October, 2013. Had this information been provided to the company at the time of applying for the insurance policy, we would have declined the application. Since this vital information was not provided to us at the time of applying for the policy, we regret our inability to accept your claim under PP000001 (Member No. 01137, LAN: 510210)". The said 4 letter was received by the complainant on 31.01.2015. After receiving requisite premium and completing all the formalities, the above policy was issued for insured sum of Rs. 99,90,249/-. The act of the opposite party No. 1 to repudiate the claim is barred by the Principle of Estoppel and Acquiescence. After the death of the life assured, complainant No. 2 deposited sum of Rs. 1,09,99,946/- in the loan account No. 510210 of the life assured.
4. The complainant No. 1 sent a legal notice dated 04.02.2015 to the finance company as well as the insurance company, stating therein that the sum assured under policy No. PP000001 be adjusted in the loan account of the life assured. The opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay the insured sum of Rs. 99,90,249/- and the opposite party No. 2 is bound to credit the said amount in the loan account of the life assured, but the opposite party No. 1 has failed to pay the sun insured under the relevant policy to the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 has failed to credit the said amount in the loan account of the life assured, therefore, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have resorted to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainants filed the present consumer complaint and sought the reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the consumer complaint.
5. Vide order dated 20.07.2015, the consumer complaint was registered and notices were issued to the opposite parties. Vide order dated 08.03.2016, the opportunity of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 of filing the written statement was closed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. HILLI Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.; 2015 (4) CCC 909 (SC), as the written statement was not filed within the statutory period of filing the written statement and also in view of the fact that 45' days period for filing the written statement had already 5 lapsed. The opportunity of opposite party No. 1 of filing the written statement was closed per order dated 07.12.2016 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), as 45 days' period for filing the written statement had already lapsed and the written statement filed by opposite party No. 1 was rejected per order dated 02.01.2017, placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
6. In evidence, the complainants have filed the affidavit dated 24.08.2016 of opposite party No. 2 (Paper Nos. 75 to 81). The opposite party No. 1 has filed the affidavit dated 22.05.2017 of Sh. Aditya Singh (Paper Nos. 189 to 193) in evidence. The opposite party No. 2 has filed the affidavit dated 03.11.2017 of Sh. Gagandeep (Paper No. 196) in evidence.
7. Since the written statement filed by opposite party No. 1 - insurance company was rejected and not made part of the record, therefore, we have to take into consideration the affidavit filed by opposite party No. 1 in evidence in order to discuss the defence taken by the insurance company to the claim so made by the complainants. In the affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1, it has been stated that the deceased life insured signed the proposal form bearing No. PP000001 on 31.10.2013; that the assured sum under the policy was Rs. 99,90,249/-; that Ritika Chauhan was the nominee in the policy; that the insurance company received death claim application form of the deceased life insured, stating therein that the deceased life insured had passed away on 28.07.2014; that in the proposal form, the deceased had given a declaration that he had made complete, true and accurate disclosure of all the relevant facts and circumstances; that the question Nos. 1, 2 and 8 in the proposal form were answered by the 6 deceased as "NO"; that as per the attending Physician's statement dated 11.10.2014 filled by Dr. Sanjay Prakash Saxena, the deceased was a known case of chronic liver disease and was under consultation since December, 2013; that investigation was conducted by opposite party No. 1 through an investigation agency named Saaransh Service Agency; that the investigation agency reported that the deceased was suffering from chronic liver disease; that the medical reports submitted by the deceased's father further confirmed the fact that the deceased was under treatment since December, 2013 in relation to chronic liver disease and had died due to the said disease coupled with septic shock; that the deceased life insured had not disclosed the above facts in the proposal form; that the insurance company has repudiated the claim on the ground of medical non-disclosure on the part of the insured and the same was communicated vide letter dated 08.01.2015; that the medical reports and death summary submitted by the father of the deceased life insured show that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 25.07.2017 with Chronic Liver Disease with Cellulitis RT Lower Limb with Osteomyelitis Tibia with Septic Shock and had Bradycardia followed by Cardiac Arrest and was declared dead on 28.07.2014; that the complainants have themselves affirmed that the insured was suffering from chronic liver disease since last three years' and was under treatment from Max Super Speciality Hospital, Dehradun; that the complainant No. 2 himself submitted medical reports of the deceased life insured since January, 2014 till 28.07.2014, death summary and other related documents, which were confirmed by the investigating agency and which undoubtedly prove that the deceased had concealed the material information in the proposal form and with malafide intention, got his home loan insured from opposite party No. 1; that the nominee under the policy admitted full and final settlement done by opposite party No. 1 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy 7 contract and had taken the liability of the loan amount; that the complainants admitted the loan liability and had paid the loan amount to opposite party No. 2; that the insurance company has acted in compliance of the terms and conditions as agreed by the deceased life insured; that the insurance company settled the claim in terms of the policy contract and the opposite party No. 2 is bound to recover the loan amount from the nominee or the complainants only and that the complainants have no locus standi to file the consumer complaint.
8. In evidence, the opposite party No. 2 has stated that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainants against the opposite party No. 2; that the complainants have wrongly impleaded opposite party No. 2 as party to the consumer complaint; that the opposite party No. 2 is entitled to recover the entire amount due against the loan taken by late Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2.
9. None appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and opposite party No. 3 and gone through the record. We have also perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainants as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 1.
10. The insurance company has turned down / repudiated the claim per their letter dated 08.01.2015 (Paper Nos. 72 to 73) on the ground that the life assured had given wrong answer to question Nos. 1, 2 and 8 given in the proposal form for the policy in question. The answer to the said questions were given by the life assured in the negative as "NO". The said questions are quoted below:
8(i) Have you ever suffered or are currently suffering from:
(a) Chest pain or heart attack or any other heart disease
(b) Cancer, tumor growth or cyst of any kind (c) Stroke, paralysis, Epilepsy, any psychiatric/mental disorder, disorder of brain/nervous system or any kind of physical disabilities (d) Asthma, Tuberculosis or other lung disorder (e) Diseases or disorder of muscles, bones or joints, arthritis or blood disorder (anemia) or any endocrine disorder (f) Diseases of the kidney, digestive system (stomach, pancreas, gall bladder, intestine) liver, hepatitis B or C or HIV / AIDS infection (g) Diabetes, high blood pressure.
(ii) During the last 5 years have you undergone any major surgery or been hospitalized for more than one week?
(iii) Have you ever been declined, deferred and accepted at special terms, had cover reduced or had exclusion imposed for any life, health or accident insurer cover?
11. During the pendency of the consumer complaint, the learned counsel for the complainants moved interrogatories dated 24.08.2016 (Paper Nos. 86 to 87) upon the opposite parties. Question No. A(1) was to the effect whether the opposite party No. 1 had given any insurance cover to the deceased life insured in order to protect the loan bearing loan account No. 542757 taken by the life insured from opposite party No. 2 for purchase of the car and question No. A(2) was to the effect whether the opposite party No. 1 had paid any claim against the said insurance policy taken in order to protect the car loan and if so, how much amount has been paid and to whom. The answers to the above interrogatories submitted by opposite party No. 1 along with application dated 10.03.2017 (Paper Nos. 163 to
164) resolves the entire controversy and puts the same at rest and also 9 nullifies the defence taken by the opposite party No. 1 in the case at hand.
12. In reply to interrogatory No. 1, the opposite party No. 1 - insurance company has submitted that, "we have received these cases as a separate intimations claim No. VC000111 (Car Loan) intimation received on 13.09.2014, since it was a low sum assured case and intimated separately claim approved on 22.09.2014. In reply to interrogatory No. 2, the opposite party No. 1 has stated that sum of Rs. 4,13,809.05/- was paid to HDB Financial Services Limited and sum of Rs. 86,190.95/- was paid to Ritika Chauhan. Thus, as per the own admission of the opposite party No. 1 - insurance company, they have paid / settled the claim lodged against the insurance policy issued in favour of the deceased life insured for protecting the personal loan taken by him for purchase of the vehicle. In reply to similar sort of interrogatories through reply dated 03.02.2017 (Paper No. 150), the opposite party No. 2 - finance company has stated that they have received the amount of Rs. 4,13,809.05/- on 29.09.2014 towards personal loan insurance from opposite party No. 2 and the said amount was adjusted in the said loan account and thereafter rest of the amount has been paid by the insurance company to the deceased's nominee, i.e., his wife. In reply to interrogatory No. C(1) in respect of opposite party No. 3 as to whether she has received any amount after adjustment of car loan account No. 542757 , she has submitted through application dated 03.12.2017 (Paper No. 149) that she has received an amount of Rs. 86,190/- on 24.09.2014.
13. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the insurance company has settled the personal / car loan taken by the deceased life insured. The said loan was taken by the deceased on 21.12.2013, the amount when the amount was disbursed in his favour, as would be evident from the 10 statement of account in respect of loan account No. 542757 (Paper Nos. 33 to 35). The said loan was a later loan taken by the deceased life insured than the loan against property bearing loan account No. 510210 taken by him and which was disbursed in his favour on 30.11.2013, as would be evident from the statement of account in respect of the said account (Paper Nos. 28 to 32). Therefore, if the life assured was guilty of suppression of any material fact with regard to his health and had made any false statement with regard to his health etc. in the proposal form, the insurance company ought to have also declined the claim in respect of the policy issued in favour of the deceased life insured for protecting the personal / car loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which as is stated above and has also been admitted by the insurance company, has been settled / paid by them. The insurance company can not be allowed to pick and choose and to say that since the said claim was a low sum assured and hence they have settled the same. The insurance company can not be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same breath and to say that since the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- was not a heavy claim, they have approved and settled the same and since the claim in question was for a heavy sum, they have repudiated the same. The factual position from which both the claim arise, is the same and in fact, as is stated above, the personal / car loan was taken by the deceased life insured later in time. The law regarding suppression of material fact is same for all the claims, whether the sum assured under the policy is low or high and if there is suppression of any material fact on the part of the life assured, the insurance company is not liable to honour the claim irrespective of the claim amount. Thus, the insurance company is estopped by the Principle of Estoppel and Acquiescence.
14. This apart, we do not find any force in the stand taken by the opposite party No. 1 - insurance company for repudiation of the claim 11 in question. The reason being that as per the own saying the insurance company, the deceased life insured was under consultation since December, 2013. The loan against property was disbursed in favour of the deceased life insured on 30.11.2013. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased life insured was suffering from chronic liver disease from before taking the loan or issuance of the insurance policy in his favour and he deliberately and intentionally suppressed the said fact in the proposal form and gave wrong / false answers to the questions asked for in the proposal form with regard to his state of health. Even otherwise, it was the duty of the insurance company to get the deceased life insured thoroughly medically examined before providing such a huge insurance cover, as the deceased life insured was got insured by the finance company with the insurance company for covering the loan against property of heavy sum of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-. Secondly, since the insurance company has settled the claim in respect of the later loan taken by the deceased life insured and hence the insurance company can not escape from its liability to honour the claim in question and we are of the considered view that the insurance company has certainly made / resorted to deficiency in service by denying the claim.
15. As is stated above, on 04.01.2018, i.e., the date of hearing in the consumer complaint, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. On the said date, when the proceedings of the Commission were over and the consumer complaint was reserved for order, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 appeared and stated that due to certain reason, he could not appear before the Commission in time. Since the consumer complaint was already heard and reserved for order, leave was granted to the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 to file the written arguments, if any.
1216. On 11.01.2018, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 moved an application with a prayer that the averments made in the written statement filed by opposite party No. 1 on 02.01.2017 may kindly be considered in view of the order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Diary No. 2365 of 2017; Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another Vs. M/s Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. and another. On the said application, an endorsement was made by the learned counsel for the complainants to the effect that there is no provision to recall the order and the order passed by the Hon'ble Commission, thereby rejecting the written statement filed by the opposite party No. 1 has attained finality.
17. Since the opportunity of opposite party No. 1 of filing the written statement was closed per order dated 07.12.2016 and the written statement filed by opposite party No. 1 was rejected per order dated 02.01.2017 and since in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another; [2015 (33) LCD 1762], this Commission has no power to recall its order, therefore, the application dated 11.01.2018 moved by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 is hereby rejected. However, we have, in the earlier part of this order, discussed the defence taken by the opposite party No. 1 in the instant case. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 moved an application dated 11.01.2018, stating therein that in his diary, the date of 11.01.2018 was noted in respect of the present consumer complaint and after appearing before the Commission, he came to know that the consumer complaint was fixed for 04.01.2018. It was also stated that the opposite party No. 2 has earlier filed the written statement as well as evidence. It was prayed that the appearance of opposite party No. 2 be recorded in the consumer 13 complaint. As has been stated above, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 on 04.01.2018, when the consumer complaint was heard and reserved for order and the absence on behalf of opposite party No. 2 was duly recorded in the order-sheet dated 04.01.2018 and since in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others (supra), this Commission has no power to recall its order, therefore, the presence on behalf of opposite party No. 2 can not, now, be recorded.
18. It is true that the present consumer complaint has not been filed by the nominee appointed by the deceased life insured in the insurance policy, but the present consumer complaint has been filed by the parents of the deceased life insured. In para 22 of the consumer complaint, the complainants have specifically stated that after the death of the deceased, the opposite party No. 3 is living separately and is not ready to sign the consumer complaint, therefore, she has been impleaded as proforma opposite party. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, non-filing of the consumer complaint by the nominee will not make any difference, in view of the fact that the proforma opposite party No. 3, the wife of the deceased, has not objected to the claim so made by the complainants, in-laws of proforma opposite party No. 3 and has not filed any written statement to the claim made by the complainants in the consumer complaint. Even otherwise, the policy amount is not to be given to the complainants or the proforma opposite party No. 3, but is to be paid by the insurance company to the finance company for adjustment of the same in the loan account of the deceased and the complainants have also not prayed for payment of the insured amount to them, rather they have prayed that the opposite party No. 1 be directed to pay the insured sum to the opposite party No. 2 for adjustment of the 14 said amount in the loan account of the deceased life insured. It would not be out of place to mention here that against the claim made in respect of the insurance policy issued in favour of the deceased life insured to secure the personal / car loan, the opposite party No. 3 has received a sum of Rs. 86,190/- from the opposite party No. 1 - insurance company on 24.09.2014, as has been admitted by her in reply (Paper No. 149) submitted against the interrogatory served upon her and hence if any amount was to be paid to her in respect of the claim (subject matter of the consumer complaint), she would have definitely joined the consumer complaints in the consumer complaint or should have filed the consumer complaint on her own. However, whatever may be the reason of not filing the consumer complaint by the nominee, but non-filing of the consumer complaint by the nominee under the policy, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the relief sought by the complainants, will not make any difference and the complainants can not be denied the relief on the said technical ground, which does not have any material impact on the merits of the case. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the complainants before us are the legal heirs of the deceased life insured, being his parents.
19. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 cited a decision dated 12.08.2015 of the Hon'ble National Commission given in Revision Petition No. 833 of 2009; LIC of India Vs. Braham Singh. In the said case, before obtaining the insurance policy, the insured was suffering from AIDS, which fact, admittedly had been concealed in answering the questionnaire pertaining to the personal history. It was held that the insured had obtained the insurance policy by concealment of material fact and, as such, the insurance contract is not a valid contract and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim. In the instant case, as is stated above, there is 15 nothing on record to show that the deceased life insured was suffering from chronic liver disease from before taking the loan or issuance of the insurance policy in his favour. Learned counsel also cited another decision dated 12.01.2015 of the Hon'ble National Commission given in Revision Petition No. 3223 of 2010; LIC of India Vs. Ms. Mamta. In the said case, the life assured was admitted in hospital on 19.08.2005 and at the time of admission, the doctor was informed that the patient had a history of diabetes mellitus for the last five years and was on insulin for the last three years. In the instant case, as per the own saying the insurance company, the deceased life insured was under consultation since December, 2013, whereas the loan against property was disbursed in favour of the deceased life insured on 30.11.2013. Learned counsel further cited decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of P.C. Chacko and another Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others; III (2008) CPJ 78 (SC), wherein it has been held that the insured was aware of consequence of making misstatement of fact and deliberately gave wrong answer, which resulted in vitiation of policy. In the present case, we do not find any misstatement on the part of the deceased life insured while taking the policy. Even otherwise, as is stated above, if there was any misstatement on the part of the insured, the insurance company ought to have also declined the claim in respect of the policy issued in favour of the insured against the car loan disbursed in his favour by the finance company. Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.; IV (2009) CPJ 8 (SC), wherein it was held that the contract of insurance is based on uberrima fides (utmost good faith) and the insured is under obligation to make true and full disclosure of the information within his knowledge. There can not be any dispute about the above preposition of law pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex 16 Court. Learned counsel cited one more decision dated 09.08.2016 of the Hon'ble National Commission given in Revision Petition No. 1992 of 2016; Swadesh Pal Singh Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited and another. In the said case, the insurance company did not accept the proposal of insurance in view of medical condition of the wife of the complainant that she was under
weight. Additional premium of Rs. 4,041/- was charged and offer was accepted after paying additional premium on 28.03.2005. Therefore, the insured risk was started from 28.03.2005. It was held that it is clear that the insured underwent FNAC on 07.03.2005 and diagnosed as malignancy (Metastatic Carcinoma). She paid extra premium of Rs. 4,041/- on 28.08.2005, thus, the proposal was accepted on 28.03.2005. Therefore, it is a clear case of concealment of material facts by the insured (deceased) person. There is no such eventuality in the case at hand. The net result is that the case law cited by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and do not provide any help to the opposite party No. 1.
20. For the reasons aforesaid, consumer complaint is allowed and the opposite party No. 1 - insurance company is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 99,90,249/- to the opposite party No. 2 -
finance company and the opposite party No. 2 - finance company is directed to credit the said amount of Rs. 99,90,249/- to the loan account No. 510210 of the deceased life insured late Sh. Amar Singh Bishnoi. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K