NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ANUSUYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the petitioner herein, offered insurance cover for a period of ten years on payment of one-time-premium under the Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy scheme. Deceased Guru Shanthappa M., husband of respondent/complainant No. l availed the policy covering the period from 13th of March, 1998 to 12th of March, 2008 for a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh and paid the relevant one time-premium of Rs. 1,375. Guru Shanthappa M., however, died on 19th of September, 2002 on account of a snake bite. Respondent/complainant No. 1, being the nominee of the Life Assured, approached the petitioner/Insurance Company for the settlement of the claim arising out of the said policy on 11th of January, 2003. On a reply received thereto stating that her claim is not maintainable as the policy stood cancelled w.e.f. 1st of July, 2002; the widow of the Life Assured, along with her daughter, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitradurga ( District Forum for short), seeking a direction to the petitioner/Insurance Company to honour their claim. The complaint was contested by the petitioner/Insurance Company. Parties thereafter led their respective evidence, after a consideration of which the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/Insurance Company to pay the policy amount with benefits to the complainants within two months, failure of which was to attract interest @ 12% per annum till its payment and in addition it ordered payment of Rs. 1,500 towards the cost of litigation.

(2.) Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner/Insurance Company filed an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( State Commission for short), who vide the order impugned held that the stand of the petitioner/Insurance Company, that in terms of Condition No. 5 of the Policy they had duly served the notice for cancellation of the policy, was not sustainable and in any case since the insured has not played any fraud in obtaining the policy and further that the Insurance Company does not disclose the reasons for cancellation of the policy, it dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Yet dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of the two Fora below that the opposite party/Insurance Company is in revision before us.