BALA DEVI Vs. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petition no. 2958 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.05.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 298 of 2011.

(2.) The facts of the case as gleaned from the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar ('the District Forum') are that the complaint has been filed by the petitioner with the averments that the husband of the petitioner Hawa Singh has purchased a life insurance policy from the respondent no. 1 Met Life Insurance Company (in short, 'the insurance company') through respondent no. 2 Ajit Singh under plan MET GROWTH for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 29.12.2008 and the petitioner being the nominee is legally entitled for the benefits qua the policy after death of her husband on 26.03.2009 who had expired due to sudden cardiac arrest (heart attack). It was averred that the petitioner as per the assurance submitted all the necessary documents to the insurance company for settlement of her claim but the claim was repudiated by the insurance company without any legal justification vide letter dated 24.11.2009. It was averred that the claim was rejected on false grounds of concealment of true state of health by the assured at the time of agreement and signing the proposal form and also that the insured was suffering from 'Pleural Effusion' since 2007. It is averred that the repudiation is not legally justified and the petitioner has sought payment of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

(3.) The District Forum while allowing the complaint, "ordered the respondent no.1 insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of life assured i.e., 26.03.2009 till its actual realisation along with Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation which the petitioner has to bear for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed".