MEENA DEVI Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 15/12/2018 in CC No. 86/2017. The Complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation as provided under sec. 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now repealed by Consumer Protection Act, 2019).

(2.) The complainant has challenged the impugned order in the present appeal on several counts. It is submitted that the order of the State Commission is fraught with illegality. It is submitted that as per Article 44-A of Limitation Act, 1963, a suit can be filed on a policy of insurance when the same is payable on the death of insured either within 3 years from the date of death of insured or where the claim under the policy is filed with the Insurance Company within 3 years from the date of such denial of the claim wholly or in part. It is submitted that her husband Sh. Pramod Kumar Singhania obtained two life insurance policies bearing no. 358148559 commencing from 23/4/2010 to 23/4/2030 which were to mature on 23/4/2030. Annual premium of Rs.1,31,472.00 was paid by him. The premium amount was, thereafter, regularly paid. Other policy i.e. Jeevan Anmol for Rs.15,00,000.00 bearing no.358148555 was taken on 28/4/2010 and the premium qua this policy was also regularly paid. The insured died on 12/8/2012 during the subsistence of the policies. The complainant submitted the claim with the respondent along with all the original documents. The claim was repudiated by the respondent after lapse of 2 years from the date of submission of claim on the ground that insured had concealed the correct status of his health at the time of filling up the proposal form. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that period of limitation for filing complaint had started from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 26/11/2016 and since the complaint had been filed within 2 years of the said date, the complaint was within limitation and the State Commission has wrongly, relying on the judgments having no bearing on the facts and circumstances of this case, dismissed the claim at the admission stage, holding that the claim was barred by limitation. It is submitted that the impugned order is a perverse order and patently illegal order and it is prayed that it shall be set aside.

(3.) This Commission had issued notice of the appeal to the respondent and both the parties have filed the written synopsises, along with case laws.