CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellants, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against order dated 12.1.2001, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), in Complaint Case No. TC/1070/98-entitled Smt. Krishna Devi V/s. The Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-II, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent, Smt. Krishna Devi had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that her husband late Shri Desh Ram Yadav had taken a Life Insurance Policy bearing No.120293896 for Rs.1,00,000/-, which was issued by the appellants. It was stated that the complainant, being the wife of the deceased, was appointed as a nominee to receive the amount in respect of the abovesaid policy in case of death of the person, whose life was assured. It was stated that said Shri Desh Ram Yadav, whose life was assured under the abovesaid policy, unfortunately, expired on 23.7.1994. The respondent, being the nominee, preferred claim in respect of the policy amount but the same was repudiated by the appellants vide letter dated 30.3.1996. It was stated, in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that the repudiation of the claim by appellant No.1, was illegal and unjust. It was prayed, in the complaint, filed by the respondent, said Smt. Krishna Devi, that the appellants be directed to release the claim of the respondent without any delay together with interest @ 24% per annum.

(3.) The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was resisted by the appellants who had filed a joint reply/written version. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellants, before the District Forum, certain preliminary objections were taken to the effect that the respondent had not approached the Forum with clean hands; that the complaint filed by the respondent, did not disclose any cause of action; that the complaint filed by the respondent, was an abuse of the process of law and the machinery set up under the Act and that the complaint, filed by the respondent, was against the principles of 'uberima Fides'. On merits, it was stated that the claim of the respondent was repudiated after due application of mind and that the repudiation was absolutely valid, legal and justified. It was stated that the claim of the respondent had been repudiated bonafidely on the ground of mis-representation and withholding of material information of vital facts with regard to the state of health of the assured at the time of taking out the policy in question. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and the complaint filed by the respondent, be dismissed with heavy costs.