AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 20.9.2001 passed in Case No. 306/2000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sagar (for short the "District Forum") whereby the complaint in not making the payment of the sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- with its benefit, on the death of the policy holder was allowed with an order to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 20.9.2000 and Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings.
ADMITTEDLY, the life assured- Manak Ahirwar gave a proposal to obtain the Money Back Policy (with profits) No. 371484479 of the table and term 75-20 of the sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- mode of payment of premium monthly of Rs. 302/-, date of commencement of the policy was 28.9.1998 and the date of maturity is 28.9.2018. The life assured died on 16.5.2000 due to hypertension with left ventricular failure with urinary tract infection. The respondent as a nominee submitted a claim, which after investigation and obtaining information from the employer-Food Corporation of India as the life assured obtained leave for more than a week for ailments, repudiated the claim vide letter dated 20.9.2000 on suppression of fact and giving false answers to queries No. 11 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (i). Learned Counsel for the appellant relying on the decision of the National Commission in Senior Divisional Manager, LIC & Ors. v. Smt. Raksha Goyal, II (2002) CPJ 92 (NC) submitted that from the leave record and medical certificates on record, the life assured obtained leave for more than a week prior to submitting of the proposal, that is from 17.8.1996 to 24.8.1996, 9.10.1996 to 14.10.1996, 1.8.1997 to 18.8.1997, 9.2.1998 to 27.2.1998 and 3.2.2000 to 12.2.2000, therefore, the repudiation for suppression of material fact in relation to health of the life assured was on justifiable ground.
The submission cannot be accepted as from the photocopies of the medical certificats on record, it is evident that the life assured for enteric fever obtained leave of 8 days and leave of 9.10.1996 to 14.10.1996 for simple fever, leave from 1.8.1997 to 18.8.1997 for seasonal fever and typhoid, leave from 9.2.1998 to 27.2.1998 for rest. During the period of leave the life assured did not suffer from any serious ailments, which had no relation or nexus to the cause of death of the life assured-deceased nor it relates to the health condition of the life assured. Moreover, the LIC has not placed any material that while accepting the proposal for assuring the life of a person such seasonal diseases are also taken into consideration. Therefore, the decision relied by the learned Counsel for the appellant in case of Senior Divisional Manager, LIC & Ors. v. Smt. Raksha Goyal (supra) is distinguishable on facts as in that case the life assured obtained leave on medical ground and took treatment for the disease which was the cause of the death.
IN the circumstances, the order of the District Forum for making the payment of the sum assured with its benefit is justified. However, the award of interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the sum assured is excessive. Considering the circumstances and in view of change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of INdia, whereby the interest rate has been lowered down, the ends of justice would meet if the LIC is ordered to pay the amount of sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- and benefits, if any with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim, that is from 20.9.2000 alongwith Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings throughout within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the interest would be payable at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum shall stand modified as indicated hereinabove. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with the record of the case. Appeal partly allowed.