KUNWAR PAL S/O MAHABIR SINGH S/O MEHRU R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BIDHAL, TEHSIL GOHANA SONEPAT HARYANA Vs. CEO, SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER SAHARA INDIA CENTRE, 2 KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 26.06.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1871/2010, CEO, Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kunwar Pal, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 26.10.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat in Consumer Complaint No. 94/2010, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and the consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the complainant Mahabir Singh obtained a life insurance policy, bearing no. 00254419 from the opposite party (OP) Insurance Company for an insured sum of Rs. 1 lakh and the said policy was issued on 30.11.2008. The complainant was a nominee under the policy. The father of the complainant died on 07.03.2009 due to heart attack, following which, a claim was lodged with the Insurance Company, but the same was repudiated on the ground that the life assured had deliberately and knowingly concealed material facts about his weak eyesight for the last 13 years. It was stated in the letter dated 03.11.2009 issued by the Insurance Company to the petitioner that the life assured was suffering from pre-existing physical disability (weak eye sight) since 13 years, which was not mentioned at the time of signing the proposal form. The claim was, therefore, being repudiated. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP Insurance Company to pay the assured sum of Rs. 1 lakh under the policy and also Rs. 50,000.00 as compensation for mental harassment etc. and Rs. 11,000.00 as litigation cost etc.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that in addition to the concealment of material facts about his eyesight, the life assured had made deliberate misrepresentation about his occupation, nature of duties, annual income and source of income. The life assured stated that he had retired from Haryana Roadways and was getting pension of Rs. 65,000.00 per annum, but the true fact was that he was removed from the services of the Roadways in the year 1995 and was not receiving any pension, because the length of service put in by him, was not enough to enable him to get pension. It was also mentioned that since the policy was Unit Linked Plan, a sum of Rs. 72782 had been paid to the life assured, being the Fund Value under the policy.