JASBIR KAUR AND ORS. RESIDENTS OF H. NO. 561, STREET NO. 9, SHARIFPURA, RANI BAZAR AMRITSAR PUNJAB Vs. LIC OF INDIA AND ORS. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/DIRECTOR/OFFICIAL CONCERNED, AT CITY CENTRE SCHEME AMRITSAR PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in F.A. No. 1569/2005. Partly accepting the appeal, the impugned order modified the order dated 19.5.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") in C.C. No. 523/2004.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Sh. Pritpal Singh (now deceased; hereinafter referred to as "the insured") obtained a policy bearing No. 471072577 (hereinafter referred to as Policy No.1) dated 14.09.2002 and Policy No. 471084006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Policy No.2) dated 15.06.2003 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 and Rs. 3,00,000.00respectively. The premiums for the two policies were duly paid by the insured. However, on 13.7.2003, the insured started feeling some uneasiness after returning home. The insured was rushed to the Talwandi Hospital, Amritsar but the doctors who attended the insured advised that he should be taken immediately to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital and he was accordingly shifted. But he was declared dead on arrival there. On the next date i.e. 14.7.2003, the post mortem was conducted in the Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department in Government Medical College, Amritsar, and cause of death was stated to be tuberculosis of lungs. It is the case of the complainants that the in-laws of complainant No.1 started levelling false allegations on the complainant No.1 and at their instance, the matter was reported to the police. The police had recorded in its report that the complainant No.1 informed that the life assured was suffering from heart problem. Complainant No.1 alleged that she was not in her senses at the time of death of her husband and had not given any statement with respect to the health of her husband/the insured except that the insured felt chest pain for two days prior to his death. Complainant No.1 alleged that the statement before the police had been manipulated in order to deprive the Complainant Nos.1, 2 and 3 of their legitimate right of claiming the insurance amount on false and frivolous ground that the deceased was suffering from heart ailment. The claim was lodged with the O.Ps. but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 18.3.2004. On representation, the O.P. in the written reply dated 30.4.2004, informed that the claims of the complainants were rejected by the O.Ps. on account of insured withholding material information regarding his health at the time of taking the policy.

(3.) Aggrieved by the repudiation by the O.Ps., the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 19.5.2005 allowed the complaint as under:-