RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-OP against the order dated 19-05-2017 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (herein referred as "the State Commission") in the first appeal, FA No.412 of 2016 wherein the said appeal was allowed and the order of District Forum, dismissing the complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts are that the complainant, Krishan Kumar purchased an insurance policy on 23-02-2010 for his wife, Sunita Rani from the OP, Reliance Life Insurance Company for the sum assured of Rs.15,00,000/-. Unfortunately, she died on 15-10-2010 due to electrocution. The complainant being nominee in the policy, lodged a claim with the OP and completed the formalities. The complainant made several visits to the OP, but only assurances were given and the matter was postponed on one pretext or the other. The OP vide letter dated 30-04-2011 repudiated the claim stating that, the deceased life assured (DLA) was suffering from hypertension and the same was concealed while furnishing the proposal form. The complainant being aggrieved by repudiation and the deficiency on the part of the OP, filed a complaint before the District Forum, Kaithal.

(3.) The OP insurance company filed their written statement and reiterated the facts stated in their repudiation letter. It was further submitted that the complainant had not furnished complete documents within reasonable time. Some reminders were also sent to him. The OP had conducted investigation through Paramount Consultancy Services which confirmed that her death was instantaneous at her home due to electric shock. The investigation revealed that Sunita Rani was a known case of hypertension for three years prior to her death. This fact was known from the prescription slip dated 13-01-2010 issued by Dr. Trupti Kharb. The deceased did not disclose about the hypertension in the proposal form. Thus, it was a case of suppression of material fact by the DLA. Therefore, the repudiation of claim was justified.