KAMLA DEVI Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 2793 of 2006 The Branch Manager, LIC of India & 2 Ors.Vs. Kamla Devi by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner's husband purchased life insurance policy bearing No. 172074132 for a sum of Rs. 1 Lac under table No. TT-106-15 with double accident benefit on 26.5.2000. She has further asserted that her husband suddenly expired on 24.7.2002 after a period of two years and two months from the date of obtaining the policy. At that time he was employed in Haryana Police. After the death of her husband, the complainant filed the claim with the opposite parties but the opposite parties have been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant prayed that opposite parties be directed to release all the benefits under the policy with interest along with compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. OP resisted complaint and submitted that husband of the complainant/deceased/life assured has suppressed the true and material information regarding his health at the time of purchasing the assurance on 26.5.2000. It has further been pleaded in the preliminary objection that in view of the principle of Ulberima Fides and declaration in the proposal papers and averments in the policy bond, the contract of insurance becomes void abinitio on account of misstatement or suppression of true facts. As such there is no relationship between consumer and supplier of services. On merits, the opposite parties have averred that life assured was suffering from renal failure since one year and hypertension. He was old patient of heart disease since 1986. The history of illness goes before the date of proposal of the policy in question. It has also been contended that life assured was under treatment from B.D. Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak and life assured was a case of renal failure and was taking treatment in Renal Clinic No. 660 in the year 1999-2000 and he was under the treatment of hypertension since 1986. He was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak on 31.3.2000 vide CR No. 255080 and discharged on 15.4.2002. However, life assured withheld material information regarding his health at the time of effecting the assurance on 26.5.2002 and gave false answers to questions No. 11(d) and 11(i) in the proposal form and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay insurance amount with 9% p.a. interest along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1100/-. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.