CHUVAL CONSUMER PROTECTION SOC. vs Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India

BOTH these appeals arise from order dated 11.11.1998 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 295 of 1997. Impugned order reads as under : "The complaint is hereby allowed. The opponent is hereby directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 50,000.00 with bonus and other benefits and to pay the cost of Rs. 2,500.00 to the complainant No. 2 and the cost of Rs. 2,500.00 to the complainant No. 1."

APPEAL No. 522/1998 has been filed by the original opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC for short). APPEAL No. 514/1998 has been filed by the original complainants since the learned Forum has not awarded interest. We have heard the learned Advocate for the opponent LIC and the learned representative for the original complainant No. 2 (referred to as complainant).

Facts of the case are quite simple and more or less not disputed. The complainant along with his wife Smitaben @ Sumanben took ''Jeevan Sathi'' double cover insurance plan with profit and accident benefit policy in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 15.3.1993. Annual premium of Rs. 1,592/- was paid. Unfortunately, on 21.4.1993, the complainant''s wife had a fall from the gallery of the complainant''s house at around 7 O''clock in the evening. She was admitted to the Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad but she succumbed to the injuries. Inquest Panchnama and post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of various injuries to the body of the deceased. The complainant preferred claim before the opponent LIC who repudiated the claim relying on special Clause IV/B of the policy of insurance. The learned Forum came to the conclusion that special Clause IV/B will not be applicable as such clause is unconscionable and no detailed inquiry has been made with regard to the claim preferred by the complainant. Thus, holding that the clause in question is unconscionable, the learned Forum granted the claim, but without interest, as stated above.

IT is settled law under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act for short) that a clause in the agreement or the agreements cannot be challenged under the provisions of the Act. When both the parties have agreed to particular agreement/particular clause in the agreement, they cannot be permitted to resile from the same. If such is the dispute between the parties, the same can hardly be said to be a ''consumer dispute'' to be redressed by the authority under the Act. Hence, the award of the claim at the hands of the learned Forum clearly appears to be beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Forum when it proceeded to hold the clause to be unconscionable or unreasonable. The clause in question would read as under : "Notwithstanding anything mentioned to the contrary, it is hereby declared and agreed that in the event of death of Life Assured occurring as a result of intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide, insanity, accident other than an accident in a public place or murder at any time on or after the date on which the risk under the policy has commenced but before the expiry of three years from the date of this policy, the Corporation''s liability shall be limited to equal to the total amount of premium (exclusive of extra premiums if any), paid under this policy without interest : Provided that in case the life assured shall commit suicide before the expiry of one year reckoned from the date of this policy, the provisions of the clause under the heading ''suicide'' printed on the back of policy, shall apply."

THE facts of the present case which are not disputed clearly indicated that the complainant''s wife had a fall from the gallery of the complainant''s house. THE accident clearly occurred in a private place and not in a public place. THE accident occurred before the expiry of period of three years from the date of commencement of the policy. As a matter of fact, the accident occurred within a period of less than two months from the date of the policy. It clearly appears that such a clause cannot be said to be unconscionable/unreasonable. In fact, if such a clause was not there married women would incur greater risk of life in the present-day Indian society. THErefore, so far as married women are concerned, clause like the above clearly appears to be in larger public interest. Be that as it may conclude from any stand-point, such a clause cannot be challenged as unconscionable. In the present case, the clause is clearly applicable. Hence, the repudiation based on such a clause cannot be said to be deficiency in service on the part of the opponent LIC of India. In the result, appeal filed by opponent LIC of India is required to be allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the complainant is required to be dismissed. Following order is, therefore, passed. ORDER Impugned order dated 11.11.1198 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 295 of 1997 is hereby set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed. Appeal No. 522 of 1998 stands allowed and Appeal No. 514/1998 filed by the complainant, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as costs throughout. Appeal No. 522/1998 allowed. Appeal No. 514/1998 dismissed.