AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IA No. 17149 / 2017 ( condonation of delay in filing revision petition)
Delay condoned. Not opposed.
Revision Petition
By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), Petitioner, Opposite Party in the original Complaint, has challenged the order dated 26.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.583 of 2009.
The admitted facts of the case are that LIC policy was taken in the year 2001 and the premium was paid. It was continued to be revived on payment of premium. The insured Ragubir Narain Gupta met with an accident on 14.01.2007. The subject policy expired on said date and on payment of premium, the policy which was continuing since the year 2001 was revived by the petitioner on 20.01.2007 valid for the period 15.01.2007 to 14.01.2008. The insured expired after medical treatment on 15.02.2007 and claim to the petitioner was made for the insured amount which was repudiated.
The complaint was filed by son of the deceased before the District Forum. In the written statement before the District Forum in para 23, the petitioner had made the following submissions:
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the policy was revived on 20.01.2007 by depositing premium, doing forged signatures and with wrong declaration. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
On the basis of this admission and documents, the District Forum passed the following order:
"Under the facts and circumstances mentioned above the serious fault is found upon the opposite party no.1 & 2 and jointly responsibility goes upon them. Ordered that with 5 lakhs policy insured amount added rupees 20,000/- to economic harassment and mentally harassment as compensation and pay rupees 5000/- for cost of case within 6 months otherwise if above ordered amount not paid given the ordered date and time to petitioner will entitled to receive interest per annum on ordered amount. Non payment of the ordered amount for the realisation of ordered amount under the provision of section 27 of Consumer Protection Act the court may take punishable action."
On challenge by way of appeal, the State Commission while dismissing the appeal issued the following directions:
"In view of the aforesaid facts and findings of the District Forum and after considering the issue related in the present case, we are of the opinion that admittedly at the time of death of the life assured, the insurance policy in question stood revived and valid issued by the LIC authority and when nothing has been brought on record by way of evidence that the Insurance Agent who used to work as chain between the agent and the insurer, the insured is not supposed to suffer. For the reason we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the District Forum and, therefore, it needs no interference. However, the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum appears to be higher side. Hence, it needs to be modified. Thus, we modify interest @ 10% p.a. with simple interest instead of penal rate of interest @ 15%.
In result, with aforesaid modification, the order of the District Forum upheld and the appeal stands partly allowed.
The impugned order has been challenged by way of this revision petition.
The main contention of the petitioner is that insurance policy was wrongly revived on the basis of wrongful declaration made by the insured in the proposal form. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that no wrong information was given by the insured because insurance policy was revived on the basis of Medical Examiner's Confidential Report which was obtained by the agent of the petitioner and on the basis of that it was revived and premium was accepted. It is further submitted that by way of premium, the insured paid a sum of Rs.3,98,000- to the petitioner, which fact is admitted by them.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."
(emphasis supplied)
9, Counsel for the petitioner fails to point out any perversity in the impugned order. The insured had paid the amount of premium to the LIC and the policy which had been obtained in the year 2001 has been revived on submission of premium. If any agent had played fraud on the petitioner, the petitioner is free to take action against the said agent. The fact that LIC policy was revived and was in existence on the day the insured expired, the petitioner is liable to pay the insured sum to the insured.
In view of the discussion above, I find no perversity in the impugned order. The petition has no merit and same is accordingly dismissed.