LIC OF INDIA Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners ) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in Appeal No.295/2006 wherein Smt.Shakuntala Devi and another were the Respondents.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the complaint by the Respondent/Complainant before the District Forum was that the husband (insuree) of the Respondent had taken an insurance policy from the Petitioner/Insurance Company for Rs.50,000/- under the Plan and Term 75-20 commencing w.e.f. 26.03.1999 at a half yearly payable premium of Rs.1,744/- through an authorized agent (Respondent No.2 herein) of the Petitioner/Insurance Company. Although, the insuree paid the premium amount regularly to Respondent No.2, the latter failed to deposit the same in the office of the Petitioner/Insurance Company and therefore, insuree was declared a defaulter for no fault of his and on his death on 26.11.2001 the claim filed by the Respondent was repudiated on flimsy grounds. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner/Insurance Company be directed to award the claim of the full sum assured of Rs.50,000/- along with other bonuses as admissible as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment etc.

(3.) The above contentions were denied by the Petitioner/Insurance Company who stated that the policy of the life assured which had lapsed due to non-payment of premium for the period from 26.09.2000 to 25.09.2001, was revived at the request of the insuree on 22.11.2001. At that time he suppressed the fact regarding his health status by not revealing that he had been taking treatment for Tuberculosis from 27.02.2000 in the OPD of the District Hospital and was subsequently admitted to the hospital on 16.11.2001 wherein he died 10 days later. Therefore, in view of the suppression of these material facts, the claim was rightly repudiated.