BALESHWAR SINGH VILLAGE AND POST PARSHURAMPUR Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CO.AND ORS. CENTRAL OFFICE AT YOGAKSHEMA JEEVAN BIMS MARG MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12.02.2008, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 711/2006, "Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) & Ors. v. Baleshwar Singh" vide which, while accepting the said appeal, the order passed by the District Forum Chhapra in consumer complaint No. 128/2002, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside, and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner Baleshwar Singh filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum, saying that his deceased brother Tarkeswar Singh had obtained two insurance policies from the Opposite Party (OP) LIC one policy No. 532495010 for a sum assured of 2 lakh and another policy No. 532638677 for a sum assured of 25 lakh. The said Tarkeswar Singh died on 18.08.2000 due to snake bite. The petitioner/complainant, being a nominee under the policy No. 532638677, filed claim before the LIC which was rejected by them on the ground that while taking the said policy, the insured had not disclosed about the earlier policy taken by him. The consumer complaint was filed, seeking directions to the OP LIC to pay a sum of 25 lakh as sum assured under the second policy.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP LIC by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the insured had concealed material facts of obtaining the first policy from the OP LIC fraudulently and hence, he was not entitled to the claim under the Policy. The LIC stated that the date of commencement of the said policy was 28.04.2000. On submission of claim, it was found on verification that the factum of obtaining the earlier policy had not been disclosed in the proposal form deliberately, with an intention to avoid detailed medical examination. The OP stated that a contract of insurance was of utmost good-faith and hence, the claimant was not entitled to be paid the claim under the said Policy.