Page 96 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 96

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

For the Peti- Mr. Apoorv Chandra Saxena, Advocate
tioner :
For the Respon- Ms. Priyanka Telang
dent :

Dated : 12 Apr 2017
ORDER
PER MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act), is to the order dated 14.10.2011 in Appeal No.
1753 of 2010 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Ahmedabad (in short the State Commission). By the impugned order, the State Com-
mission has set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Bhavnagar (in short the District Forum) and directed the first and second Opposite
Parties to pay the policy amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of filling of the Complaint together with other benefits payable under the Policy.
2. The facts, material to the case, are that the Complainant‘s husband, was ap-
proached by an Insurance Agent that is the third Opposite Party, for taking a Life
Long Unit Linked Insurance Policy, which indemnifies the insured for an amount
of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the coverage period 31.03.2008 to 30.09.2009. It was
pleaded that the Insurance Agent himself filled the form on 24.03.2008 and took the
signatures of the life Assured in the Proposal Form.
3. While so, on 13.04.2008, the insured complained of breathing problem ac-
companied by fever and was admitted to Sitaram General Hospital, where, on
14.04.2008 during the course of treatment, he expired on account of Pneumonia. The
Complainant made a claim which was repudiated vide letter dated 24.02.2010 on the
ground that the insured had taken Insurance Policies of more than Rs. 20,00,000/-
from other insurance companies, which information was not disclosed in the Proposal
Form. Despite several requests the claim was not settled and hence, the Complainant
approached the District Forum seeking directions to the Opposite Parties jointly and
severally to pay an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest, compensation and cost.
4. The First and second Opposite Parties filed their Written Version admitting
to the issuance of the Policy for Rs. 15,00,000/- and contended that after 15 days of
issuance of the Policy i.e., on 15.04.2008, the insured died due to Pneumonia. When
the claim was investigated, it was revealed that the insured has taken policies of more
than Rs. 20,00,000/- from different insurance companies viz., Reliance Life, Bharti
AXA Life Insurance and ING Life Insurance Company, which fact was not declared
by the insured in the Proposal Form. Had it been declared, the Insurance Company
would have got an opportunity to decide whether the Policy was to be issued or not.
Hence, there is no deficiency of service on their behalf for repudiating the claim.
5. The third Opposite Party, filed his Written Version stating that he had filled
the Proposal Form and thereafter took the signature of the insured on the said Pro-

INDEX