State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Smt.Kamlabai Hiralal Satikar, on 4 August, 2010
1 F.A.No.:179/2006
Date of filing :23.01.2006
Date of order :04.08.2010
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :179 OF 2006
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:120 OF 2004
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :JALNA.
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Through its Branch Manager,
Surya Hotel,
Devulgaon Raja Road,
Jalna.
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Through its Zonal Office,
Yogakshema,
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai 400 021. ...APPELLANTS
(Org.Opponents)
VERSUS
Smt.Kamlabai Hiralal Satikar,
Near India Bank,
Mama Chowk,
Jalna. ...RESPONDENT
(Org.Complainant)
CORAM : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.Rajesh Shah for appellant, None for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The present appeal is filed by LIC of India against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2005 in complaint case No. 120/04 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalna.
2. Respondent/Org.Complainant`s case before the Forum is that, her deceased husband Hiralal Bholaram Satikar had obtained New Janraksha policy with profit with benefit for sum assured of 2 F.A.No.:179/2006 Rs.25,000/- for the period 15.5.2002 to 15.5.2017. The premium of Rs.469/- was deposited. It is contended that her husband Hiralal Bholaram Satikar died on 2.6.2002. She being legal heir approached the appellant with claim. The claim was repudiated on the ground that policy holder made deliberate incorrect statement and withheld correct information about his health vide letter dated 31.12.2003 and thus she approached the Forum.
3. Present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that policy holder was found suffering from stomach cancer at the time of submission of proposal. This fact had been suppressed by him. Thus they have rightly repudiated the claim.
4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed appellant to refund premium amount of Rs.469/-. Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.500/- towards cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Jalna, LIC of India came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as respondent. Learned counsel Shri.Rajesh Shah appeared on behalf of appellant. Respondent was served with the notice 'Under Certificate of Posting'. But she did not appear. We heard learned counsel Shri.R.B.Shah for appellant. We perused the papers. On perusal of papers, it reveals that Forum has upheld the contention of appellant that policy holder suppressed the material particulars about his health. Forum observed that policy holder was suffering from cancer of stomach when he had obtained the policy. As he had suppressed this material fact he is not entitled for claim.
3 F.A.No.:179/20067. Forum observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant even then Forum directed appellant to refund premium of Rs.469/-. Clause No.6 of the policy is not considered by the Forum. It appears that Forum overlooked the Clause No.6 and failed to appreciate when suppression was proved. There was no question of refund of premium amount. Appeal is required to be allowed. We pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist.Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
6. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh
Member Presiding Judicial Member.
Mane