LIC OF INDIA vs Shakuntala

THE present revision petition has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, petitioner/opp.party in this case, wherein the order rendered by the State Commission has been called into question. The principal argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that instead of imposing personal costs upon the officials of the LIC, it should have been imposed upon the LIC itself.

THE facts germane to this case are these. Satbir Singh Tandon, since deceased, husband of Smt. Shakuntala, respondent, obtained a LIC policy on 20.05.2004 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner. He obtained two other Policies as well, but the same are not concerned with this case because according to the counsel for the petitioner, the claim of those two policies already stands settled. It is alleged that Satbir Singh Tandon has been under treatment for chest pain and was getting treatment in Holy Help Hospital, Hissar, on 08.01.2004 and from CMC, Hissar on 04.05.2004. He also got endoscopy done. He also undertook treatment from Grover Hospital, Tohana on 14.02.2006 because of the same chest pain. Satbir Singh Tandon passed away on 20.02.2006. After his death, the complainant filed a claim for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The LIC of India repudiated the said claim vide its letter dated 08.01.2007 on the ground that in the proposal form, the insured had concealed, deliberately, the heart problem from the knowledge of the Insurance Company. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jind, Haryana. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the LIC of India to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of his death, till its realization.

Aggrieved by that order, appeal was preferred before the State Commission, by the petitioner herein. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and imposed costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, to be recovered from the officials of LIC of India.

NOW , the present revision petition has been filed. The main defence set up by the LIC of India was that the life assured had concealed the true and material information regarding his ill-health from the opposite party/petitioner. The State Commission observed that there is no evidence on the record by way of Certificate issued by the treating Doctor/Hospital that the life assured was being treated, prior to the obtaining of the insurance policy and that the life assured was having any knowledge of the said disease. The State Commission further held that the petitioner had failed to prove any document to establish that the life assured, prior to the date of obtaining the insurance policy, was taking treatment from any Doctor/Hospital. The LIC of India had produced prescription slip dated 14.02.2006. It did not support the case of the petitioner/opp.party to reveal that the insured was suffering from any disease, prior to the date of obtaining the insurance policy in the year 2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not pick up a conflict with these findings given by the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and imposed costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to be recovered from the pockets of the officials who were responsible for taking up the above mentioned flimsy grounds for rejecting the genuine claim of the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the officials of LIC of India should not be burdened with costs. He contended that the LIC of India is ready to pay the entire amount to the complainant and requested that this Commission should delete the payment of costs or it should be modified to the extent that the said costs would be paid by the LIC of India.

SUCH like arguments do not whittle down the value of order passed by the learned State Commission. The officers of LIC of India constitute the LIC itself. Some mistakes are committed, out of which, few are deliberate and are committed with ulterior motive. Certain harsh realities cannot be glossed over. The Commission cannot wink at such like omission. There is dereliction of duty. Lamently, the Department pays no heed to the Indispline prevalent in its Branches. It is surprising to note that instead of tackling the issue by taking the bull by horns, it has chosen to file a revision petition before this Commission. Instead of having sympathy with the widow of deceased Satbir Singh Tandon, they have caused incalculable damage to her by dragging her to consumer Foras. Few people are not helpful at all. Their purpose must be fulfilled and they are not concerned with the sufferings of the victims. The order passed by the State Commission is well reasoned and we see no flaw therein. The revision petition is bad and therefore, it is dismissed at the time of its admission.