SUDHA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. LIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 1.10.2005 in Complaint No. 22/04 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Koria, Baikunthpur (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short) whereby the complaint was dismissed subject to cost. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant's husband late P.C. Shrivastava had in his life-time taken a Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 378040800 on 8.9.1996 for a sum of Rs. 50,000. The said policy had lapsed and was subsequently renewed on 8.12.1999. The husband of the complainant had also taken another policy bearing No. 378239933 from the O.P. on 28.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 50,000 with accident benefit. Indisputably the complainant's husband died during the subsistence of the aforesaid policy in an accident on 27.8.2002. The complainant has averred in the complaint that while obtaining the policy the husband of the complainant was medically examined. Subsequent to the death of the life insured, the complainant had laid claim under both the policies before Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LIC' for short) but the claim were repudiated vide letters dated 28.2.2003. The complainant had also preferred appeal against the aforesaid decision but the same was rejected vide letter dated 9.8.2003. Hence, the complainant approached the District Forum on the ground that by repudiating her claim LIC has rendered itself liable for deficiency in service.

(3.) The OPs in their written version averred that since the life insured had made false statement in the proposal form for obtaining subsequent policy and also in the form for renewal of lapsed policy. The contract between the parties was void and the life insured or his nominee was not entitled to any benefit out of such agreement/policy. It was further averred in the written version that the complainant's husband P.C. Shrivastava had made false declaration regarding the state of his health, hence the LIC was not liable for making any payment and had not committed any deficiency in service. It was further averred that the life assured died within two years of revival of earlier policy and obtaining subsequent policy. Since, it was a case of early death, the OP made through investigation in the matter and it was revealed that the life assured suffered from lack of appetite and Ankelosing Spondylitis since the year 1998 and was referred to AIIMS, Delhi but while filling relevant form for revival of lapsed policy on 8.12.1999 and also while filling the proposal form on 28.11.2000 for subsequent policy, the life assured had made false declaration regarding his health. Hence, the claim was repudiated on 28.2.2003 and the complainant had also preferred appeal before the Appeal Committee and the same was also dismissed. The act of the OPs does not amount to deficiency in service.