AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh dated 4 th December, 2012 in first appeal No.100 of 2011.
Undisputed facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that Mrs. Babita wife of the petitioner/complainant purchased a life insurance policy with sum insured Rs.1,00,000/-. The insurance policy was issued on 28.11.1999 wherein the date of commencement of risk was shown as 28 th September, 1999. Wife of the petitioner committed suicide on 9 th October, 2002. The petitioner filed an insurance claim. Insurance claim was, however, repudiated by the respondent in view of clause 4 (B) of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy which excludes the liability of the insurance company to pay the insurance claim if the life assured commits suicide before the expiry of three years from the date of the policy.
The District Forum on appreciation of pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed as under: -
"OP insurance company after adjusting the earlier paid amount of Rs.24,440/- (twenty four thousand four hundred forty only) to the complainant will pay the remaining amount of Rs.75,560/- (seventy five thousand five hundred sixty only) and bonus, if any, within one month.
Pay Rs.1,000/- (one thousand only) within one month for committing deficiency in service by not paying the insured amount to the complainant.
Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) is fixed as litigation expenses which is also payable to the complainant by the OP within one month."
Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum respondent/insurance company preferred an appeal. The State Commission relying upon the judgment of the National Commission in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India &vs. Surat Mal Tak (2011) CTJ 265 (CP) (NCDRC) and the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of LIC of India & Anr. vs. Dharam Vir Anand (1998) 7 SCC 348 accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. This has led to filing of the revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is based upon incorrect reading of the relevant condition 4 (b) of the insurance contract. It is argued that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that as per the insurance policy issued to the life assured the date of commencement of risk is 28.9.1999. Therefore the date of policy ought to have been taken by the State Commission as 28 th September, 1999. It is argued that undisputedly the life assured committed suicide on 9 th October, 2002 i.e. three years after the date of commencement of risk. As such the repudiation of the insurance claim is not justified and amounts to deficiency in service.
Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company on the contrary has argued that perusal of the copy of the insurance policy available on record would show that the proposal form submitted for obtaining the insurance policy was 25.11.2009 on which date policy was issued. Therefore, the date of issue of policy has been taken by the State Commission as 25.11.1999. It follows that the date of issue of policy has been rightly taken by the State Commission as 25.11.1999. Thus, it is clear that the death of the insured by suicide took place before the expiry of three years from the date of issue of policy which justifies the repudiation of the insurance claim.
We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The facts of the case are more or less admitted. Only question which needs determination in this case is whether the date of issue of policy should be treated as the date on which the risk under the policy commenced i.e. 28.9.1999 or 25.11.1999 the date on which the policy was issued.
Similar issue came up for consideration before Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Dharam Vir Anand (1998) 7 SCC 348 . In Dharam Vir ''s case the insurance policy was issued on 31.3.1990 but commencement of risk was from 10.5.1989. The life assured committed suicide on 15.11.1992 within three years from the date of issuance of insurance policy. Hon''ble Apex Court held that date on which the risk under policy had commenced and date of policy cannot be equated for the purpose of interpretation of clause 4 (B) of the policy. The Hon''ble Apex Court held that the date of policy for the purpose of said clause is to mean the date on which the policy was issued and not the date on which risk under the policy had commenced. Although the date of commencement of risk has been pre-dated 28.9.1999 the date of issue of policy is 25.11.1999. Admittedly the life assured committed suicide on 9 th October, 2002 i.e. within three years from the date of issue of policy. Therefore, in view of condition 4 (B) of attested copy of the terms & conditions of the insurance contract at page 64 of the file, which excludes the liability of the insurance company to pay insurance claim for the death of the life assured due to suicide committed within three years of the date of issue of policy, the insurance company was justified in repudiating the insurance claim. As such the respondent/opposite party cannot be said to be deficient in service.
In view of the discussion above, we do not find any fault with the order of the State Commission which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.