AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act,1986 in challenge to the Order dated 17.12.2015 of the State Commission in appeal no. 319 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 23.11.2009 of the District Commission in complaint no. 79 of 2006.
We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the complainants (the respondents herein) and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 23.11.2009 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 17.12.2015 of the State Commission and the petition.
The dispute relates to repudiation of insurance claim on the death of the insured on ground that there was suppression of material information relating to health condition. The complainants are the daughter (nominee) and widow of the deceased insured. The District Commission vide its Order of 23.11.2009 made its appraisal of the case and allowed the complaint. It directed the insurance co. to pay the insured amount (Rs. 5 lakh) and the admissible benefits with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the demand along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. The State Commission vide its Order of 17.12.2015 once again made its independent appraisal and for reasons given dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance co.
No useful purpose will be served by entering into a de novo recapitulation of the Orders passed by the fora below. It is admitted that the premium was paid, the policy was valid and the policy was issued after a medical examination of the insured was got conducted by the insurance co. from a doctor on its own panel. The sum and substance of the appraisal made by the State Commission is that the insurance co. had not been able to conclusively establish that there was in fact suppression of material information (“we find that the appellants/opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contention that the claim was repudiated due to suppression of material facts by the insured.”).
We do not notice any palpable jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned Order of the State Commission. Approach adopted by the forum below appears balanced and its reasons given appear cogent. We find no good ground or persuasive reason for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
The revision petition is dismissed.
The amount if any deposited by the insurance co. with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 19.04.2016 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the District Commission to the respondents complainants by way of ‘payee’s account only’ demand draft as per the due procedure and after the due verification. The balance awarded amount shall be made good by the insurance co. within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.