JAI SINGH Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the record. Petitioner claims to be husband of the deceasd, Smt. Geeta Rani. But the facts which have emerged in the matter are quite disturbing. The complainant/petitioner has a living wife, Smt. Hardei who is living in the house of the complainant at village Kurdi (Arya Nagar) along with their daughter. The fact that he was married to Hardei has not been disputed before this Commission also. However, it was claimed that there was divorce. But when a question was put about the divorce then it was said that there was no such document of divorce. Hardei along with her daughter is still living with the complainant/petitioner at the same premises. If there was no divorce there could not be any valid marriage with the deceased. It may be further mentioned that the deceased was living with Hardei in the house of the complainant. There is no documentary proof about marriage of the complainant/petitioner with the deceased. It has also been noticed by the State Commission that Geeta Rani, deceased was not legally wedded wife of the complainant and Geeta Rani had died an unnatural death as has been mentioned in the post-mortem report. The fact that Geeta Rani was wife of one Bhagwan Das was noticed by the State Commission and no evidence relating to her divorce with Bhagwan Das was produced, so long as she had not been divorced by Bhagwan Das again there could not be any marriage with the complainant. If it was mentioned in the policy incorrectly then it could be only fraudulent statement in absence of divorce between Geeta Rani and Bhagwan Das and in between the complainant/petitioner and his wife Hardei. Since the contract of insurance is based on good faith the State Commission might be justified in holding that the complainant/petitioner could not be allowed to take benefit of fraud committed by the insured deceased and the complainant.

(2.) IN view of the above mentioned facts, we feel that the disputed questions of facts involving commission of fraud in mentioning mental status of the deceased coupled with unnatural death in the house of the complainant on one side and the ex parte order of succession on the other, this matter could not be decided by the Consumer Fora and the matter should be left to be decided by the Civil Court and the petitioner should be at liberty to approach the Civil Court. With these observations the revision petition is dismissed. R. P. dismissed.