Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs RAJKUMARI JAIN

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 18.8.2003 in Complaint No. 382/02 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''Distt. Forum'' for short) allowing the complaint and directing the appellant insurer to pay the sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs with interest @ 9% per annum as well as Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the complaint.

UNDISPUTABLY Rishabh Kumar Jain, husband of the complainant was an employee of Bhilai Steel Project and as a member of the Bhilai Steel Workers'' Union and obtained from appellant/insurer a group Janta Personal Accident Insurance policy (hereinafter called the ''Janta Policy'' for convenience) bearing No. 152501/47/99/00176 covering the risk for the period from 9.1.1999 to 8.1.2011. The certificate of insurance was issued in favour of Rishabhkumar Jain by the appellant/insurer. It is not in dispute that on 29.4.2002 the insured Rishabh Kumar Jain died in a road accident. The complainant, the wife of the insured Rishabh Kumar Jain, lodged claim with the appellant/insurer but the appellant/insurer repudiated her claim. Hence, the complaint was filed before the Distt. Forum. Appellant insurer resisted the claim mainly on the ground that as per stipulation in the policy, the appellant/insurer had the right to cancel the policy at any time. It was further averred that cancellation of the said policy had been intimated by its letter dated 26.11.2001 addressed to Secretary, Steel Workers'' Union. Appellant/insurer averred that in view of the cancellation of the policy by it, the complainant/respondent was not entitled to get any benefit under the policy.

Distt. Forum held that cancellation of the said policy was not properly communicated to the insured and thus the said cancellation was not as per terms of the policy. Accordingly, it was held that appellant/insurer was liable to pay the assured sum under the said policy to the complainant/respondent.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant/insurer urged that policy was issued at the instance of Steel Workers'' Union, Bhilai. It was also submitted that as per Clause 5 of the said policy, it could be cancelled at any time. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellant/insurer by its letter dated 26.11.2001 addressed to Secretary, Steel Workers'' Union, Bhilai intimated that the policy was being cancelled. Accordingly, there was no liability of the appellant/insurer to pay the assured amount to the complainant/respondent. Learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent, however, submitted that the policy condition No. 5 was not duly complied with by the appellant/insurer. It was not submitted that since no intimation was given to the insured regarding the cancellation of the policy, by the appellant/insurer, hence the policy cannot be deemed to have been cancelled.

THE only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: as to whether ''Janta Policy'' was duly cancelled by the appellant/insurer? It may be noticed that even according to the written version of the appellant, intimation regarding cancellation of Janta Policy was not given to insured Rishabh Kumar Jain. In view of the above, it is clear that the cancellation of the policy was not as per terms thereof. Since there was no cancellation of policy, the complainant/respondent was entitled to the benefit under the said Janta Policy. It may be pointed out that similar question has already been decided by this Commission by its order dated 6.2.2004 in Appeal No. 1218/03 and other connected appeals, dismissing the said appeals. For the foregoing reasons, and the reasoning given in the said order, this appeal also deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal being without merit is dismissed. The order of the learned Distt. Forum is maintained. Appellant/insurer shall bear its own cost of this appeal and shall also pay that of the complainant/respondent which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.