SHALINI SRIVASTAVA Vs. AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') challenges the order dtd. 31/7/2014 of the Chhatisgarh State Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint Case No. 13 of 2009 dismissing the complaint.

(2.) The delay of 100 days in the filing of this complaint is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for the condonation of delay in the interest of justice.

(3.) Briefly put, the relevant facts of the case are that the appellant's late husband, Pravir Shrivastava, had availed two life insurance policies dtd. 22/10/2011 for a sum of Rs.2,07,297.00 and on 24/10/2011 for Rs.75,00,000.00 respectively from the respondent insurance company. The appellant was the nominee in both policies. On the intervening night of 23/24/12.2011 the said Shri Pravir Shrivastava died in his sleep and was declared brought dead by Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital, Bhilai. A death certificate was issued by the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. A postmortem was conducted following FIR No. 115/2011 registered with the Durg police. The report of the postmortem did not determine the cause of death specifically. Examination of the viscera by the State Forensic Test Laboratory, Raipur (FSL) on reference by the Police indicated presence of alcohol but no poison vide report dtd. 22/2/2013. The appellant filed claims as the nominee of the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) which were rejected by the respondent on the basis of investigations by M/s Sharp Eagle West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, appointed by them in view of the claim being within two years of the commencement of the policies. The ground of repudiation of the claim were that the DLA had a history of criminal charges and he failed to disclose that he was facing criminal charges in a matter of a murder under Sec. 302, IPC and that he had received medical or surgical treatment earlier and received treatment, inter alia, for bone fracture or alcohol which was violative of the principle of ubberima fidei on the basis of which the policies were issued. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the State Commission in CC No. 13 of 2009 which was dismissed by the order which is impugned before us praying to set it aside and to allow the claims under the policies with interest @ 18%, compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 for mental agony and Rs.20,000.00 for litigation costs.