ISNAKA DEVASENAMMA Vs. MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act") against the Order dtd. 25/7/2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, A.P., Vijayawada ("the State Commission"), in CC No. 1 of 2020 wherein the State Commission dismissed the Complaint.

(2.) For Convenience, the parties in the present matter being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. "Isnaka Devasenamma" is identified as the Complainant (Appellant herein) is the wife and nominee of Venku Reddy (Deceased Life Assured- DLA). Meanwhile, "M/s. Max Life Insurance Company Limited" is referred to as the Opposite Parties No.1&2/Respondents No.1&2/Insurer and Axis Bank Ltd is referred to as the Opposite Party No.3/Respondent No.3.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the OP-1 Max Life Insurance Company Ltd and its 2nd Branch Office/OP-2 issued a life insurance policy to Venku Reddy, referred to as the life assured, under Policy No. 35003246, for Rs.45,00,000.00 as sum assured. The OP-3 bank, sanctioned a loan of Rs.45,00,000.00 to the life assured with an interest rate of 10.5%. The life assured was required to pay Rs.69,480.00 per month for 8 years. OP-3, as the agent of OP-1, facilitated the insurance policy. The policy certificate was issued on 13/2/2019. The life assured passed away on 28/2/2019 while undergoing treatment at Basavatarakam Indo-American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Hyderabad. The complainant, being the nominee, submitted a claim to the insurance company, which was repudiated on 15/5/2019, citing non-disclosure of the life assured's diagnosis of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. She requested reconsideration, but the claim was again rejected on 11/6/2019. She asserted that there was no prior knowledge or intentional non-disclosure of the illness by the life assured before submitting the insurance application and that the repudiation constitutes a deficiency in service. Being aggrieved, she filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission seeking payment of the sum assured of Rs.45,00,000.00 with interest and costs.