AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ALTHOUGH we find that there is substance in the contention raised by the appellant that the State Commission was in error in holding that the appellant who had filed the complaint before it in his capacity as ''nominee'' under a policy of life insurance will not be a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence his complaint could not be entertained by the State Commission, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter to the State Commission for a consideration of the other issues arising in the case. We say this, because, on going through the records, we find that as early as on February 6, 1990, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called ''respondent'') had sent a communication to the complainant repudiating its liability for any payment under the policy in question on the ground that the insured had made incorrect statements and withheld correct information from the insurer regarding his health at the time of effecting the assurance. The said letter, which-is at pages 10 of the laper book set out detailed opinions and it shows that the matter had been considered by the respondent in all its aspects and it had taken the decision to repudiate the claim in good faith after due application of its mind to relevant aspects. Once it is found that the insurer had duly considered all the relevant facts and circumstances and taken a decision in good faith as to whether the claim put forward by the insured or a nominee under the policy should be allowed to any extent, it cannot be said that there has been any ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the insurer in relation to the performance of its duties under the contract of insurance.
IN such a case, in the event of the insured or his nominee or legal heir as the case may be, feeling dissatisfied with the decision communicated by the insurer, he will have to seek redressal either by resort to arbitration under the relevant clause in the Policy or by institution of a suit before the ordinary Civil Court. The jurisdiction of the Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act can be invoked only in case there has been a ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the insurer. Where the decision to repudiate the liability has been communicated by the insurer without stating reasons or where the decision is taken arbitrarily or without due application of mind or otherwise than in good faith, the insured can in all such cases legitimately maintain an action before the Redressal Forum under the Act on the ground of deficiency. Since, in the present case we have found that the decision communicated by the Life Insurance Corporation as per its letter dated February, 1990 had been taken by the respondent in good faith after due application of its mind after taking relevant factors into account, it is not possible to say that there has been any ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the insurer. The appeal is liable to fail on this ground.
In the light of what is stated above, we uphold the action taken by the State Commission dismissing the complaint though our order is based on a ground totally different from the one stated in the order of the State Commission.
THE appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.