Page 47 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 47

the State Commission is based upon incorrect reading of the relevant condition 4 (b)
of the insurance contract. It is argued that the State Commission has failed to appreci-
ate that as per the insurance policy issued to the life assured the date of commence-
ment of risk is 28.9.1999. Therefore the date of policy ought to have been taken by
th
the State Commission as 28 September, 1999. It is argued that undisputedly the life
th
assured committed suicide on 9 October, 2002 i.e. three years after the date of com-
mencement of risk. As such the repudiation of the insurance claim is not justified and
amounts to deficiency in service.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company on the contrary has
argued that perusal of the copy of the insurance policy available on record would
show that the proposal form submitted for obtaining the insurance policy was
25.11.2009 on which date policy was issued. Therefore, the date of issue of policy has
been taken by the State Commission as 25.11.1999. It follows that the date of issue of
policy has been rightly taken by the State Commission as 25.11.1999. Thus, it is clear
that the death of the insured by suicide took place before the expiry of three years
from the date of issue of policy which justifies the repudiation of the insurance claim.
7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on re-
cord. The facts of the case are more or less admitted. Only question which needs de-
termination in this case is whether the date of issue of policy should be treated as the
date on which the risk under the policy commenced i.e. 28.9.1999 or 25.11.1999 the
date on which the policy was issued.
8. Similar issue came up for consideration before Hon‘ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Dharam Vir Anand (1998) 7
SCC 348. In Dharam Vir‘s case the insurance policy was issued on 31.3.1990 but
commencement of risk was from 10.5.1989. The life assured committed suicide on
15.11.1992 within three years from the date of issuance of insurance policy. Hon‘ble
Apex Court held that date on which the risk under policy had commenced and date of
policy cannot be equated for the purpose of interpretation of clause 4 (B) of the pol-
icy. The Hon‘ble Apex Court held that the date of policy for the purpose of said
clause is to mean the date on which the policy was issued and not the date on which
risk under the policy had commenced. Although the date of commencement of risk
has been pre-dated 28.9.1999 the date of issue of policy is 25.11.1999. Admittedly the
th
life assured committed suicide on 9 October, 2002 i.e. within three years from the
date of issue of policy. Therefore, in view of condition 4 (B) of attested copy of the
terms & conditions of the insurance contract at page 64 of the file, which excludes the
liability of the insurance company to pay insurance claim for the death of the life as-
sured due to suicide committed within three years of the date of issue of policy, the
insurance company was justified in repudiating the insurance claim. As such the re-
spondent/opposite party cannot be said to be deficient in service.
9. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any fault with the order of
the State Commission which may call for interference in exercise of revisional juris-
diction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.

......................J, AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
...................... ANUP K THAKUR, MEMBER

INDEX