NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1882 OF 2007
(From the order dated 12.2.2007 in Appeal No. 391/2005 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)
Life Insurance Corporation of India ….. Petitioner
Mahavir Nagar
Barmer
Rajasthan
Through
Assistant Secretary (L&HPF)
Northern Zonal Office
Jeevan Bharati
Connaught Circus
New Delhi
Vs.
Sh. Hemi Devi ….. Respondent
W/o Late Sagarpuri Caste Goswami
R/o Langera
Barmer (Rajasthan)
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR.SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent : NEMO
Pronounced on : 16th December, 2011
ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission Circuit Bench Jaipur by which the State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and modified the relief earlier granted by the District Forum, Barmer vide its order dated 28.1.2005 in favour of the complainant, respondent herein.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant/respondent, who is wife of the deceased life assured, filed a complaint before the District Forum, Barmer claiming that her husband took a policy for Rs.25,000/- with back date of commencement from 28.12.1993 at a yearly premium of Rs.3110/- under Jeevan Surabhi with accident benefit and since her husband had died on 20.8.2003, she had raised a claim under this policy which had been declined by the petitioner on the ground that the policy had lapsed and was revived on 23.1.2003 but life assured had concealed material facts at the time of revival of the policy and filled up fresh declaration with regard to his health by concealing material fact of his illness although he was suffering from hypertension and heart disease for which he had taken treatment and purchased medicines. Aggrieved by the rejection of her claim, the complainant/respondent challenged the same before the District Forum, Barmer by filing a consumer complaint which was accepted by the District Forum which ordered that the complainant could recover the amount of insurance policy for Rs.25,000/- along with accrued bonus as per rules. The complainant was also held entitled to receive interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim, i.e., 26.2.2004 along with cost of Rs.1,000/- from the petitioner company.
3. The petitioner company which was opposite party before the District Forum, challenged this order of the District Forum in appeal before the State Commission which allowed the appeal vide its impugned order dated 12.2.2007 in terms of the following directions:-
“For the reasons stated above the appeal of the appellant is allowed in the manner that the complainant would be entitled to receive the whole amount deposited towards premium with bonus and in addition to this she will receive interest on the above amount @ 9% p.a. from 26.2.2004. The impugned order may be treated amended as per above. The cost of the complaint in the impugned order is confirmed.”
4. Not feeling satisfied with the impugned order of the State Commission, the petitioner has challenged the same through the present revision petition.
5. Contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that there are several pronouncements of the Apex Court which state that the assured is under obligation to make full disclosure of the material fact which may be relevant for the insurer to take into account while deciding whether the proposal should be accepted or not. According to the petitioner, since the life assured had failed to make full disclosure regarding his health at the time of the revival of the policy in question which amounted to concealment of material information which rendered the contract null and void and hence when the State Commission vide its impugned order had found that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner but yet had erroneously exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in it while directing the petitioner company to return the premium paid with bonus and interest @ 9% w.e.f. 26.2.2004. Thus the State Commission had also committed grave error and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent had never appeared and hence was proceeded ex parte but the written submissions filed by the respondent are placed on record and have been perused. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to our notice that even though the impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner, the same has already been complied with by the petitioner by making payment to the complainant/respondent in terms of the impugned order. In these circumstances, taking into consideration the very smalldecretal amount involved in the impugned order and the fact that the claim in question pertains to the death of the insured which took place on 20.8.2003, we are of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in lingering on with the present revision petition and the same can be treated to have become infructuous at this belated stage. It would, therefore, be appropriate to treat the same as infructuous and dispose it of accordingly without getting into the merits of the case as such. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that this should not be treated as a precedent for the future cases since the contentions raised by the petitioner in respect of the merits would remain open for consideration in the light of the existing judgements by the Apex Court and other Fora in respect of the reliefs granted by the State Commission vide its impugned order which is under challenge shall remain open. We agree to the submission made by the learned counsel and direct that the decision in this case should not be treated as a precedent in other cases and dispose of the present revision petition with these directions.
………………………………
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA)
PRESIDING MEMBER
………………………………
(SURESH CHANDRA)
MEMBER
SS/
