National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Prateek Rathi & Ors. on 14 May, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2413 of 2008 (From the order dated 19.03.2008 in Appeal No. 942/2003 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Fatehpuria Chowraha Beawar, Distt. Ajmer, (Rajasthan) Through Chief Manager Head Office Oriental House A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP) Versus 1. Sh. Prateek Rathi S/o Late Sh. Kamal Kishore Rathi 2. Ms. Priyanka Rathi D/o Late Sh. Kamal Kishore Rathi 3. Sh. Prabhull Rathi S/o Late Sh. Kamal Kishore Rathi All residents of: Maheshwari Chemicals Agrasain Bazar, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer (Rajasthan) Respondents/Complainants BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwani Garg, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 14th May, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 942 of 2003 The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Prateek Rathi & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing compliant was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Kamal Kishore Rathi father of the complainants/respondents took Janta Personal Accident Policy for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the period 2.12.1998 to 1.12.2008 from OP/petitioner and paid Rs.1250/- towards premium. Insured Kamal Kishore died in road accident on 25.5.2002 and his nominee wife also died in road accident. Complainants lodged complaint with the OP. OP repudiated claim on the ground that policy had already been cancelled on 7.4.2002. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before the District Forum. OP/petitioner contested complaint and submitted that, as policy had already been cancelled on 7.4.2002, and premium was refunded, there was no deficiency on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.5,00,000/- along with 10% p.a. interest to the complainants and further awarded Rs.1,000/- 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, as policy in favour of deceased was cancelled as per Condition No. 5 of the policy on 7.4.2002 and insured died on 25.5.2002, no money was payable under the said policy and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to Condition No. 5 of the policy, insurance policy of the deceased was cancelled on 7.4.2002 i.e. prior to his death; hence, no money was payable under the policy. Perusal of policy reveals that policy does not contain any such condition either on the front or on the back page of policy. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards format of standard terms of Janta Personal Accident Policy containing Condition No. 5 according to which, Insurance Company had right to cancel policy at any time after written notice.
As policy issued by the petitioner to deceased does not contain this condition, learned District Forum has not committed any error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal in the light of Honble Apex Court judgements reported in (1996) 6 SCC 428 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corporation and (2000) 2 SCC 734 - Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in which it was held that where exclusion clause of the standard policy was neither a part of the contract of insurance nor disclosed to the insured, the Insurance Company cannot claim the benefit of said exclusion clause. It was further observed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corporation (Supra) that it is the duty of the insured and their agent to disclose all material facts within their knowledge since obligation of good faith applies to them equally with the assured.
Had petitioner or their agent disclosed Condition No. 5 of the standard format, deceased might have not opted for this policy. In the absence of any iota of evidence on record regarding Condition No. 5, forming part of insurance policy, learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards page No. 31 of the paper book in which it has been mentioned that this document is attached with the policy. This document firstly neither contains such Condition No. 5 reserving right to cancel policy by written notice and secondly, does not contain signatures of deceased and in such circumstances; this document is of no use to the petitioner.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that policy issued in favour of deceased was cancelled by letter dated 8.3.2002, which was delivered to the petitioner on 28.3.2002 and has drawn our attention towards the dispatch register, postal receipt and letter of postal authorities. Perusal of the documents reveals that letter dated 8.3.2002 addressed to deceased insured has reference of Policy No. 47/99/481, whereas as per policy it was issued on 2.12.1998; hence, policy No. was 1998/481 and this letter has no relevance with the disputed policy. Further, as per dispatch register it appears that dispatch number of this letter has been inserted later on and has been shown to have been dispatched on 27.3.2002, whereas letter was issued on 8.3.2002. Further, as per Post Office report, this letter was delivered to the deceased on 28.3.2002 under Sr. No. 1278, whereas postal receipt bears number 2078. Letter dated 8.3.2002 contains enclosure voucher, but nowhere petitioner submitted in its written statement that voucher pertaining to refund of premium was dispatched with this letter. On the contrary, letter dated 8.4.2002 issued by the petitioner appears to have been delivered to courier on 20.5.2002 (after 42 days) and delivered by courier to deceased on 31.5.2002, whereas deceased insured Kamal Kishore Rathi died on 25.5.2002. This letter also contains Policy No.96/97/98/99/47/0481, which is admittedly not the policy number issued by the petitioner to the deceased Kamal Kishore Rathi and in such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that by aforesaid letters policy issued by petitioner in favour of deceased insured Kamal Kishore Rathi was cancelled before his death.
7. Thus, it becomes clear that neither Condition No. 5 reserving right to cancel the policy was part of the policy issued by the petitioner in favour of deceased, nor such condition was brought to his notice, nor policy was cancelled before his death and in such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal.
8. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k