Page 20 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 20

We may, however, state that all these answers were false as we have
evidence and reasons to believe that before he proposed for the above policy he
was alcoholic and received treatment for deaddiction for alcoholic depression for a
long time for which he had consulted medical men and had taken treatment from
Hospital. He has mentioned in the proposal that he was working as a Driver in
KSRTC as on the date of proposal. However, our enquiry has confirmed that he
was no longer in service as on the date of proposal. He, however, did not disclose
these facts in the proposal. Instead he gave false answers therein as stated above.
It is therefore evident that he had made incorrect statements and with-
held correct information from us regarding his health at the time of effecting the
Assurance with us and hence in terms of the policy contract and the declarations
contained in the forms of Proposal for assurance and personal statement, we
hereby repudiate the claim and accordingly, we are not liable for any payment un-
der the above policy and all monies that have been paid in consequent thereof
stand forfeited‖.
2. Even after repudiation of the claim, an ex-gratia of Rs.2,50,000/- was made
to the complainant by the petitioner Corporation on 26.10.2009. Being still dissatis-
fied she approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint on
18.3.2013.
3. The complaint was resisted by the Petitioner Corporation primarily on the
grounds on which the claims had been repudiated.
4. The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the petitioner Corporation
approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal
also having been dismissed, the Corporation is before this Commission by way of the
present revision petition.
5. Though notice of the revision petition is reported to have been served on the
respondent / complainant on 26.7.2017, no-one has appeared for her. I have there-
fore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered the record.
6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the
claim having been repudiated way back on 12.12.2007, and even the payment of
Rs.2,50,000/- on compassionate ground having been made on 26.10.2009, the com-
plainant approached the District Forum only on 18.3.2013 and therefore the complaint
was hopelessly barred by limitation. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for
the petitioner Corporation. If computed from the date of repudiation of the claim, the
period of limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, ex-
pired in December, 2009. Even if the period of limitation is computed from the date
on which the payment on compassionate ground was made, it expired in October,
2011. The complaint, having been filed on 18.3.2013 therefore was hopelessly barred
by limitation and no application for condonation of the said delay was filed. The Dis-
trict Forum as well as the State Commission ought to have taken note of the aforesaid
and dismissed the complaint on this ground alone.
7. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation has drawn my
attention to the proposal form dated 16.12.2004, wherein the deceased insured inter-
alia maintained that he had not been admitted to any hospital or Nursing home for
general observation, treatment or operation. He had also denied having taken alco-
holic drinks. He has drawn my attention to the statement of Smt. A.R. Sudha, wife of

INDEX