Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur
Decided On : Jan-09-2013
Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 12', (int) 1 => 'the Consumer Protection Act', (int) 2 => 'Indian Contract Act', (int) 3 => 'the Motor Vehicle Act', (int) 4 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Inderjit Kaushik', (int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Forum', (int) 2 => 'Ludhiana', (int) 3 => 'Sukhdeep Kaur', (int) 4 => 'Sukhdev Singh S', (int) 5 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 6 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 7 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 8 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 9 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 10 => 'Lineman', (int) 11 => 'Jang Singh', (int) 12 => 'Lineman', (int) 13 => 'Janak Singh', (int) 14 => 'Lineman', (int) 15 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 16 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 17 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 18 => 'Amarvir Singh', (int) 19 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 20 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 21 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 22 => 'Chandigarh', (int) 23 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 24 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 25 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 26 => 'Jang Singh', (int) 27 => 'Janak Singh', (int) 28 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 29 => 'Kaur Sandhu Vs' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3.', (int) 3 => 'âbrought', (int) 4 => '4.', (int) 5 => '22.06.2005', (int) 6 => '22.06.2005', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => 'one', (int) 9 => '5.', (int) 10 => '6.', (int) 11 => 'two', (int) 12 => '28.12.2005', (int) 13 => '27.12.2005', (int) 14 => '22.06.2005', (int) 15 => '22.06.2005', (int) 16 => '8', (int) 17 => '9', (int) 18 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 19 => '10', (int) 20 => '11', (int) 21 => '12', (int) 22 => 'two', (int) 23 => '22.06.2005', (int) 24 => '13', (int) 25 => '14', (int) 26 => '15', (int) 27 => '22.06.2005', (int) 28 => '27.12.2005', (int) 29 => '22.06.2005', (int) 30 => '16', (int) 31 => '17', (int) 32 => '18', (int) 33 => '19', (int) 34 => '20', (int) 35 => '21', (int) 36 => '22' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 1 => 'District Consumer', (int) 2 => 'Smt', (int) 3 => 'Punjab State Electricity Board', (int) 4 => 'Asstt', (int) 5 => 'Goyal Hospital', (int) 6 => 'the Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 7 => 'DLA', (int) 8 => 'the Zonal Office', (int) 9 => 'District Forum', (int) 10 => 'District Forum', (int) 11 => 'DLA', (int) 12 => 'the District Forum', (int) 13 => 'the District Forum', (int) 14 => 'DLA', (int) 15 => 'the District Forum', (int) 16 => 'The Honble Supreme Court', (int) 17 => 'New India Assurance Company Ltd.â', (int) 18 => 'Supreme Court', (int) 19 => 'â17', (int) 20 => 'the Contract of Insurance', (int) 21 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act', (int) 22 => 'Honble National Commission', (int) 23 => 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.', (int) 24 => 'the District Forum', (int) 25 => 'the District Forum', (int) 26 => 'the District Forum', (int) 27 => 'Commission', (int) 28 => 'District Forum' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'âthe District Forumâ' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1986', (int) 1 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 2 => '16.06.2006', (int) 3 => '16.06.2006', (int) 4 => '26-4734', (int) 5 => 'a rainy day', (int) 6 => '23.02.2007', (int) 7 => 'June', (int) 8 => '2005', (int) 9 => '16.06.2006 and earlier hospitalization', (int) 10 => '1872', (int) 11 => '16.06.2006', (int) 12 => 'one month', (int) 13 => '28.03.1998', (int) 14 => '16.06.2006', (int) 15 => '23.02.2007', (int) 16 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 17 => '26.08.2008', (int) 18 => '16.06.2005', (int) 19 => 'the year 2005', (int) 20 => '2009', (int) 21 => 'âbreach', (int) 22 => '26.08.2008', (int) 23 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 24 => 'Rs.25,000/-', (int) 25 => '45 days', (int) 26 => '60 days' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Actâ', (int) 1 => 'Khatra', (int) 2 => 'Baghore', (int) 3 => 'Khatra', (int) 4 => 'Bhagwan', (int) 5 => 'Singh', (int) 6 => 'p.a.', (int) 7 => 'New Delhi', (int) 8 => 'p.a.', (int) 9 => 'IV' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'no.162818811' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 2.00 p.m.', (int) 1 => 'about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m.' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%', (int) 1 => '9%' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rules' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1107731', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'First Appeal No.1236 of 2008 ', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2013-01-09', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'THE HONOURABLE MR. INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, appellant (In short âthe appellantâ) has filed this appeal against the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short âthe District Forumâ).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as âthe respondentâ) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, âthe Actâ) against the appellant, narrating that she is widow of Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Nachhattar Singh. Sh. Sukhdev Singh, since deceased, during his lifetime obtained insurance policy, insuring his life with accidental benefits, from the appellant vide policy no.162818811 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and during his lifetime, he paid the premium upto date. At the time of obtaining the policy, the life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh was examined by the doctors of the appellant and after thorough medical examination, the proposal was accepted and the above policy was issued with accidental benefits equivalent to the sum insured. The respondent was nominee under the policy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 16.06.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. Sh. Sukhdev Singh was working with Punjab State Electricity Board as Lineman and was posted in village Khatra and on 16.06.2006, he was coming on his scooter bearing no.PB-10- 26-4734 along with Jang Singh, Asstt. Lineman and Janak Singh, Lineman from village Baghore to Khatra. The scooter rider was life assured Sukhdev Singh. It was a rainy day and the road was slippery and when the life assured reached near the fields of Bhagwan Singh resident of village Baghor at about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., the scooter suddenly slipped and the life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh received multiple and grievious injuries and the other occupants also received minor injuries. The life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh was immediately rushed to Goyal Hospital and later on, to Amarvir Singh where he was declared âbrought dead. The postmortem was conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. After the death of the life assured, the respondent lodged the claim with the appellant for reimbursement of the sum insured along with accidental benefits and supplied all the necessary documents for settlement of the claim, but the claim was not settled and ultimately, vide letter dated 23.02.2007 the claim of the respondent was repudiated illegally and arbitrarily on the grounds that the life assured has given false answers in the proposal form, as he remained admitted in the hospital in June, 2005 on account of earlier accident and was on medical leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. The repudiation is wrong and illegal and is liable to set aside, as there is no nexus between death of the insured on 16.06.2006 and earlier hospitalization or medical leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. The life assured did not conceal any material fact. The respondent also obtained two insurance policies and the claim pertaining to death of life assured Sukhdev Singh was paid to Sh. Nachhattar Singh, father of the insured and said Nachhattar Singh, being nominee accepted the amount for disbursement to the legal heirs. The appellant cannot accept one claim and reject the other claim. The admission on account of earlier accident has no relevance. The repudiation of the claim on flimsy grounds amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The respondent suffered mental tension, torture and financial loss and is entitled to compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. It was prayed that the appellant may be directed to pay the sum insured along with accidental benefits, bonus under the policy in question, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of lodging the claim till payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellant, the preliminary objections were raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The respondent has not filed the appeal before the Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi or the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh. The contract of insurance is per-se different from the ordinary forms of the contract and falls within the purview of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The contract of insurance is based on the principles of âUberrimafide i.e. utmost good faith.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent was a nominee under the policy. The said case was a non-medical case and the examination was not required. It was also admitted that Sh. Sukhdev Singh died in the motor vehicle accident on 16.06.2006. The deceased life assured (in short âDLA) was having only learning licence and two persons were sitting on his scooter and he breached the law of the land. The DLA had taken policy for Rs.50,000/-on 28.12.2005 and submitted the proposal and personal statement of good health on 27.12.2005. The proposal was accepted on the basis of utmost good faith and the policy was issued. In the proposal form, the life assured gave wrong answers to the questions regarding his health, or admission in any hospital and taking treatment. The life assured withheld the correct information regarding his health, as he had met with an accident and remained admitted in the hospital on 22.06.2005 and also took medical leave from his department from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005 and after considering the claim of the respondent, the same was repudiated on the ground of false information supplied. The respondent was asked to file the representation within one month to the Zonal Office or to the Insurance Ombudsman against the repudiation, but the respondent did not do so. The earlier policies were taken w.e.f 13.09.1997 and 28.03.1998 and at that time, he was maintaining good health and the claims under those polices were rightly paid. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that there is no co-relation with the first accident and subsequent accident which resulted in the death of Sh. Sukhdev Singh on 16.06.2006. In the present case, the cause of death is purely accident and has no direct bearing to the information supplied. There is no nexus between the death of deceased on account of said accident and the information withheld, as stated by the appellant. The claim was wrongly repudiated. The complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- along with accidental benefits along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 23.02.2007 till payment and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.08.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the DLA Sh. Sukhdev Singh was coming on his scooter on 16.06.2005 and two persons, namely Jang Singh and Janak Singh were sitting behind and that was the breach of the law and as per the policy condition no.10.2 (D) (iv), the same was excluded. It was further contended that the DLA also withheld the information in the proposal form and did not disclose about the accident he met earlier and suffered fracture in his leg and remained on leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. It has been argued that the District Forum has not taken notice of these facts and the impugned order under appeal is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the previous accident had no nexus with the cause of death and the information withheld was not material and no prejudice has been caused by that to the appellant. It has been further contended that the condition about breach of law is not available, because the triple riding if, at all, is the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules and the District Forum has rightly passed the order and the appeal may be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully examined the entire record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The DLA Sh. Sukhdev Singh took leave vide application Ex.R-4 in the year 2005 from his department from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005, on the grounds that bone of the leg was fractured in the accident. In the proposal form filled on 27.12.2005, the information regarding the above accident was not given. In our opinion, the information regarding the accident in which leg of the DLA was fractured and remained on leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005, is not a material fact nor it has any nexus with the present accident. The insurance company can repudiate the claim, if the information withheld is material and not the minor informations or the information which has no direct bearing on the subsequent incident and the District Forum has rightly held so. The Honble Supreme Court in case âSatwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.â, 2009 CTJ 956 (Supreme Court) (CP) has interpreted the words âMaterial Factâ, and observed in Para- 17(relevant portion) as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> â17. The terms âmaterial factâ is not defined in the Act and, therefore, it has been understood and explained by the Courts in general terms to mean as any fact which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determining whether he would like to accept the risk. Any fact which goes to the root of the Contract of Insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be âmaterial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. The next argument regarding the term and condition of breach of law raised by the counsel for the appellant, is also not available because no specific law has been mentioned and the term âbreach of law is very vague and even considering the present case in relation with the breach of law, then also the triple riding on a scooter was breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder and not the violation of any policy. Honble National Commission in case âG. Kothainachiar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.â, IV (2007) CPJ- 34(NC) held that if the conditions of the insurance policy are violated, repudiation would be legal and valid, but if the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are violated, the authority under that Act has the right to punish the violator, but the insurer has no right to repudiate the claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid, except that the District Forum has awarded compensation and interest, but the interest and compensation cannot be awarded together.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 26.08.2008 passed by the District Forum, awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- is set aside. The remaining part of the impugned order is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Remaining amount as per the impugned order shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant within 60 days of the receipt of copy of the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 07.01.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Sukhdeep Kaur', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1107731' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 12', (int) 1 => 'the Consumer Protection Act', (int) 2 => 'Indian Contract Act', (int) 3 => 'the Motor Vehicle Act', (int) 4 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Inderjit Kaushik', (int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Forum', (int) 2 => 'Ludhiana', (int) 3 => 'Sukhdeep Kaur', (int) 4 => 'Sukhdev Singh S', (int) 5 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 6 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 7 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 8 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 9 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 10 => 'Lineman', (int) 11 => 'Jang Singh', (int) 12 => 'Lineman', (int) 13 => 'Janak Singh', (int) 14 => 'Lineman', (int) 15 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 16 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 17 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 18 => 'Amarvir Singh', (int) 19 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 20 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 21 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 22 => 'Chandigarh', (int) 23 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 24 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 25 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 26 => 'Jang Singh', (int) 27 => 'Janak Singh', (int) 28 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 29 => 'Kaur Sandhu Vs' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3.', (int) 3 => 'âbrought', (int) 4 => '4.', (int) 5 => '22.06.2005', (int) 6 => '22.06.2005', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => 'one', (int) 9 => '5.', (int) 10 => '6.', (int) 11 => 'two', (int) 12 => '28.12.2005', (int) 13 => '27.12.2005', (int) 14 => '22.06.2005', (int) 15 => '22.06.2005', (int) 16 => '8', (int) 17 => '9', (int) 18 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 19 => '10', (int) 20 => '11', (int) 21 => '12', (int) 22 => 'two', (int) 23 => '22.06.2005', (int) 24 => '13', (int) 25 => '14', (int) 26 => '15', (int) 27 => '22.06.2005', (int) 28 => '27.12.2005', (int) 29 => '22.06.2005', (int) 30 => '16', (int) 31 => '17', (int) 32 => '18', (int) 33 => '19', (int) 34 => '20', (int) 35 => '21', (int) 36 => '22' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 1 => 'District Consumer', (int) 2 => 'Smt', (int) 3 => 'Punjab State Electricity Board', (int) 4 => 'Asstt', (int) 5 => 'Goyal Hospital', (int) 6 => 'the Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 7 => 'DLA', (int) 8 => 'the Zonal Office', (int) 9 => 'District Forum', (int) 10 => 'District Forum', (int) 11 => 'DLA', (int) 12 => 'the District Forum', (int) 13 => 'the District Forum', (int) 14 => 'DLA', (int) 15 => 'the District Forum', (int) 16 => 'The Honble Supreme Court', (int) 17 => 'New India Assurance Company Ltd.â', (int) 18 => 'Supreme Court', (int) 19 => 'â17', (int) 20 => 'the Contract of Insurance', (int) 21 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act', (int) 22 => 'Honble National Commission', (int) 23 => 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.', (int) 24 => 'the District Forum', (int) 25 => 'the District Forum', (int) 26 => 'the District Forum', (int) 27 => 'Commission', (int) 28 => 'District Forum' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'âthe District Forumâ' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1986', (int) 1 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 2 => '16.06.2006', (int) 3 => '16.06.2006', (int) 4 => '26-4734', (int) 5 => 'a rainy day', (int) 6 => '23.02.2007', (int) 7 => 'June', (int) 8 => '2005', (int) 9 => '16.06.2006 and earlier hospitalization', (int) 10 => '1872', (int) 11 => '16.06.2006', (int) 12 => 'one month', (int) 13 => '28.03.1998', (int) 14 => '16.06.2006', (int) 15 => '23.02.2007', (int) 16 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 17 => '26.08.2008', (int) 18 => '16.06.2005', (int) 19 => 'the year 2005', (int) 20 => '2009', (int) 21 => 'âbreach', (int) 22 => '26.08.2008', (int) 23 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 24 => 'Rs.25,000/-', (int) 25 => '45 days', (int) 26 => '60 days' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Actâ', (int) 1 => 'Khatra', (int) 2 => 'Baghore', (int) 3 => 'Khatra', (int) 4 => 'Bhagwan', (int) 5 => 'Singh', (int) 6 => 'p.a.', (int) 7 => 'New Delhi', (int) 8 => 'p.a.', (int) 9 => 'IV' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'no.162818811' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 2.00 p.m.', (int) 1 => 'about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m.' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%', (int) 1 => '9%' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rules' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1107731', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'First Appeal No.1236 of 2008 ', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2013-01-09', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'THE HONOURABLE MR. INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, appellant (In short âthe appellantâ) has filed this appeal against the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short âthe District Forumâ).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as âthe respondentâ) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, âthe Actâ) against the appellant, narrating that she is widow of Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Nachhattar Singh. Sh. Sukhdev Singh, since deceased, during his lifetime obtained insurance policy, insuring his life with accidental benefits, from the appellant vide policy no.162818811 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and during his lifetime, he paid the premium upto date. At the time of obtaining the policy, the life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh was examined by the doctors of the appellant and after thorough medical examination, the proposal was accepted and the above policy was issued with accidental benefits equivalent to the sum insured. The respondent was nominee under the policy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 16.06.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. Sh. Sukhdev Singh was working with Punjab State Electricity Board as Lineman and was posted in village Khatra and on 16.06.2006, he was coming on his scooter bearing no.PB-10- 26-4734 along with Jang Singh, Asstt. Lineman and Janak Singh, Lineman from village Baghore to Khatra. The scooter rider was life assured Sukhdev Singh. It was a rainy day and the road was slippery and when the life assured reached near the fields of Bhagwan Singh resident of village Baghor at about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., the scooter suddenly slipped and the life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh received multiple and grievious injuries and the other occupants also received minor injuries. The life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh was immediately rushed to Goyal Hospital and later on, to Amarvir Singh where he was declared âbrought dead. The postmortem was conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. After the death of the life assured, the respondent lodged the claim with the appellant for reimbursement of the sum insured along with accidental benefits and supplied all the necessary documents for settlement of the claim, but the claim was not settled and ultimately, vide letter dated 23.02.2007 the claim of the respondent was repudiated illegally and arbitrarily on the grounds that the life assured has given false answers in the proposal form, as he remained admitted in the hospital in June, 2005 on account of earlier accident and was on medical leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. The repudiation is wrong and illegal and is liable to set aside, as there is no nexus between death of the insured on 16.06.2006 and earlier hospitalization or medical leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. The life assured did not conceal any material fact. The respondent also obtained two insurance policies and the claim pertaining to death of life assured Sukhdev Singh was paid to Sh. Nachhattar Singh, father of the insured and said Nachhattar Singh, being nominee accepted the amount for disbursement to the legal heirs. The appellant cannot accept one claim and reject the other claim. The admission on account of earlier accident has no relevance. The repudiation of the claim on flimsy grounds amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The respondent suffered mental tension, torture and financial loss and is entitled to compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. It was prayed that the appellant may be directed to pay the sum insured along with accidental benefits, bonus under the policy in question, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of lodging the claim till payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellant, the preliminary objections were raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The respondent has not filed the appeal before the Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi or the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh. The contract of insurance is per-se different from the ordinary forms of the contract and falls within the purview of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The contract of insurance is based on the principles of âUberrimafide i.e. utmost good faith.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent was a nominee under the policy. The said case was a non-medical case and the examination was not required. It was also admitted that Sh. Sukhdev Singh died in the motor vehicle accident on 16.06.2006. The deceased life assured (in short âDLA) was having only learning licence and two persons were sitting on his scooter and he breached the law of the land. The DLA had taken policy for Rs.50,000/-on 28.12.2005 and submitted the proposal and personal statement of good health on 27.12.2005. The proposal was accepted on the basis of utmost good faith and the policy was issued. In the proposal form, the life assured gave wrong answers to the questions regarding his health, or admission in any hospital and taking treatment. The life assured withheld the correct information regarding his health, as he had met with an accident and remained admitted in the hospital on 22.06.2005 and also took medical leave from his department from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005 and after considering the claim of the respondent, the same was repudiated on the ground of false information supplied. The respondent was asked to file the representation within one month to the Zonal Office or to the Insurance Ombudsman against the repudiation, but the respondent did not do so. The earlier policies were taken w.e.f 13.09.1997 and 28.03.1998 and at that time, he was maintaining good health and the claims under those polices were rightly paid. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that there is no co-relation with the first accident and subsequent accident which resulted in the death of Sh. Sukhdev Singh on 16.06.2006. In the present case, the cause of death is purely accident and has no direct bearing to the information supplied. There is no nexus between the death of deceased on account of said accident and the information withheld, as stated by the appellant. The claim was wrongly repudiated. The complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- along with accidental benefits along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 23.02.2007 till payment and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.08.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the DLA Sh. Sukhdev Singh was coming on his scooter on 16.06.2005 and two persons, namely Jang Singh and Janak Singh were sitting behind and that was the breach of the law and as per the policy condition no.10.2 (D) (iv), the same was excluded. It was further contended that the DLA also withheld the information in the proposal form and did not disclose about the accident he met earlier and suffered fracture in his leg and remained on leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. It has been argued that the District Forum has not taken notice of these facts and the impugned order under appeal is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the previous accident had no nexus with the cause of death and the information withheld was not material and no prejudice has been caused by that to the appellant. It has been further contended that the condition about breach of law is not available, because the triple riding if, at all, is the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules and the District Forum has rightly passed the order and the appeal may be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully examined the entire record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The DLA Sh. Sukhdev Singh took leave vide application Ex.R-4 in the year 2005 from his department from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005, on the grounds that bone of the leg was fractured in the accident. In the proposal form filled on 27.12.2005, the information regarding the above accident was not given. In our opinion, the information regarding the accident in which leg of the DLA was fractured and remained on leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005, is not a material fact nor it has any nexus with the present accident. The insurance company can repudiate the claim, if the information withheld is material and not the minor informations or the information which has no direct bearing on the subsequent incident and the District Forum has rightly held so. The Honble Supreme Court in case âSatwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.â, 2009 CTJ 956 (Supreme Court) (CP) has interpreted the words âMaterial Factâ, and observed in Para- 17(relevant portion) as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> â17. The terms âmaterial factâ is not defined in the Act and, therefore, it has been understood and explained by the Courts in general terms to mean as any fact which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determining whether he would like to accept the risk. Any fact which goes to the root of the Contract of Insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be âmaterial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. The next argument regarding the term and condition of breach of law raised by the counsel for the appellant, is also not available because no specific law has been mentioned and the term âbreach of law is very vague and even considering the present case in relation with the breach of law, then also the triple riding on a scooter was breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder and not the violation of any policy. Honble National Commission in case âG. Kothainachiar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.â, IV (2007) CPJ- 34(NC) held that if the conditions of the insurance policy are violated, repudiation would be legal and valid, but if the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are violated, the authority under that Act has the right to punish the violator, but the insurer has no right to repudiate the claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid, except that the District Forum has awarded compensation and interest, but the interest and compensation cannot be awarded together.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 26.08.2008 passed by the District Forum, awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- is set aside. The remaining part of the impugned order is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Remaining amount as per the impugned order shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant within 60 days of the receipt of copy of the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 07.01.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Sukhdeep Kaur', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1107731' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 12', (int) 1 => 'the Consumer Protection Act', (int) 2 => 'Indian Contract Act', (int) 3 => 'the Motor Vehicle Act', (int) 4 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Inderjit Kaushik', (int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Forum', (int) 2 => 'Ludhiana', (int) 3 => 'Sukhdeep Kaur', (int) 4 => 'Sukhdev Singh S', (int) 5 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 6 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 7 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 8 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 9 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 10 => 'Lineman', (int) 11 => 'Jang Singh', (int) 12 => 'Lineman', (int) 13 => 'Janak Singh', (int) 14 => 'Lineman', (int) 15 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 16 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 17 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 18 => 'Amarvir Singh', (int) 19 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 20 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 21 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 22 => 'Chandigarh', (int) 23 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 24 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 25 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 26 => 'Jang Singh', (int) 27 => 'Janak Singh', (int) 28 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 29 => 'Kaur Sandhu Vs' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3.', (int) 3 => 'âbrought', (int) 4 => '4.', (int) 5 => '22.06.2005', (int) 6 => '22.06.2005', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => 'one', (int) 9 => '5.', (int) 10 => '6.', (int) 11 => 'two', (int) 12 => '28.12.2005', (int) 13 => '27.12.2005', (int) 14 => '22.06.2005', (int) 15 => '22.06.2005', (int) 16 => '8', (int) 17 => '9', (int) 18 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 19 => '10', (int) 20 => '11', (int) 21 => '12', (int) 22 => 'two', (int) 23 => '22.06.2005', (int) 24 => '13', (int) 25 => '14', (int) 26 => '15', (int) 27 => '22.06.2005', (int) 28 => '27.12.2005', (int) 29 => '22.06.2005', (int) 30 => '16', (int) 31 => '17', (int) 32 => '18', (int) 33 => '19', (int) 34 => '20', (int) 35 => '21', (int) 36 => '22' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 1 => 'District Consumer', (int) 2 => 'Smt', (int) 3 => 'Punjab State Electricity Board', (int) 4 => 'Asstt', (int) 5 => 'Goyal Hospital', (int) 6 => 'the Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 7 => 'DLA', (int) 8 => 'the Zonal Office', (int) 9 => 'District Forum', (int) 10 => 'District Forum', (int) 11 => 'DLA', (int) 12 => 'the District Forum', (int) 13 => 'the District Forum', (int) 14 => 'DLA', (int) 15 => 'the District Forum', (int) 16 => 'The Honble Supreme Court', (int) 17 => 'New India Assurance Company Ltd.â', (int) 18 => 'Supreme Court', (int) 19 => 'â17', (int) 20 => 'the Contract of Insurance', (int) 21 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act', (int) 22 => 'Honble National Commission', (int) 23 => 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.', (int) 24 => 'the District Forum', (int) 25 => 'the District Forum', (int) 26 => 'the District Forum', (int) 27 => 'Commission', (int) 28 => 'District Forum' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'âthe District Forumâ' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1986', (int) 1 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 2 => '16.06.2006', (int) 3 => '16.06.2006', (int) 4 => '26-4734', (int) 5 => 'a rainy day', (int) 6 => '23.02.2007', (int) 7 => 'June', (int) 8 => '2005', (int) 9 => '16.06.2006 and earlier hospitalization', (int) 10 => '1872', (int) 11 => '16.06.2006', (int) 12 => 'one month', (int) 13 => '28.03.1998', (int) 14 => '16.06.2006', (int) 15 => '23.02.2007', (int) 16 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 17 => '26.08.2008', (int) 18 => '16.06.2005', (int) 19 => 'the year 2005', (int) 20 => '2009', (int) 21 => 'âbreach', (int) 22 => '26.08.2008', (int) 23 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 24 => 'Rs.25,000/-', (int) 25 => '45 days', (int) 26 => '60 days' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Actâ', (int) 1 => 'Khatra', (int) 2 => 'Baghore', (int) 3 => 'Khatra', (int) 4 => 'Bhagwan', (int) 5 => 'Singh', (int) 6 => 'p.a.', (int) 7 => 'New Delhi', (int) 8 => 'p.a.', (int) 9 => 'IV' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'no.162818811' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 2.00 p.m.', (int) 1 => 'about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m.' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%', (int) 1 => '9%' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rules' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1107731', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'First Appeal No.1236 of 2008 ', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2013-01-09', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'THE HONOURABLE MR. INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, appellant (In short âthe appellantâ) has filed this appeal against the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short âthe District Forumâ).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as âthe respondentâ) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, âthe Actâ) against the appellant, narrating that she is widow of Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Nachhattar Singh. Sh. Sukhdev Singh, since deceased, during his lifetime obtained insurance policy, insuring his life with accidental benefits, from the appellant vide policy no.162818811 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and during his lifetime, he paid the premium upto date. At the time of obtaining the policy, the life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh was examined by the doctors of the appellant and after thorough medical examination, the proposal was accepted and the above policy was issued with accidental benefits equivalent to the sum insured. The respondent was nominee under the policy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 16.06.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. Sh. Sukhdev Singh was working with Punjab State Electricity Board as Lineman and was posted in village Khatra and on 16.06.2006, he was coming on his scooter bearing no.PB-10- 26-4734 along with Jang Singh, Asstt. Lineman and Janak Singh, Lineman from village Baghore to Khatra. The scooter rider was life assured Sukhdev Singh. It was a rainy day and the road was slippery and when the life assured reached near the fields of Bhagwan Singh resident of village Baghor at about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., the scooter suddenly slipped and the life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh received multiple and grievious injuries and the other occupants also received minor injuries. The life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh was immediately rushed to Goyal Hospital and later on, to Amarvir Singh where he was declared âbrought dead. The postmortem was conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. After the death of the life assured, the respondent lodged the claim with the appellant for reimbursement of the sum insured along with accidental benefits and supplied all the necessary documents for settlement of the claim, but the claim was not settled and ultimately, vide letter dated 23.02.2007 the claim of the respondent was repudiated illegally and arbitrarily on the grounds that the life assured has given false answers in the proposal form, as he remained admitted in the hospital in June, 2005 on account of earlier accident and was on medical leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. The repudiation is wrong and illegal and is liable to set aside, as there is no nexus between death of the insured on 16.06.2006 and earlier hospitalization or medical leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. The life assured did not conceal any material fact. The respondent also obtained two insurance policies and the claim pertaining to death of life assured Sukhdev Singh was paid to Sh. Nachhattar Singh, father of the insured and said Nachhattar Singh, being nominee accepted the amount for disbursement to the legal heirs. The appellant cannot accept one claim and reject the other claim. The admission on account of earlier accident has no relevance. The repudiation of the claim on flimsy grounds amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The respondent suffered mental tension, torture and financial loss and is entitled to compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. It was prayed that the appellant may be directed to pay the sum insured along with accidental benefits, bonus under the policy in question, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of lodging the claim till payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellant, the preliminary objections were raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The respondent has not filed the appeal before the Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi or the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh. The contract of insurance is per-se different from the ordinary forms of the contract and falls within the purview of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The contract of insurance is based on the principles of âUberrimafide i.e. utmost good faith.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent was a nominee under the policy. The said case was a non-medical case and the examination was not required. It was also admitted that Sh. Sukhdev Singh died in the motor vehicle accident on 16.06.2006. The deceased life assured (in short âDLA) was having only learning licence and two persons were sitting on his scooter and he breached the law of the land. The DLA had taken policy for Rs.50,000/-on 28.12.2005 and submitted the proposal and personal statement of good health on 27.12.2005. The proposal was accepted on the basis of utmost good faith and the policy was issued. In the proposal form, the life assured gave wrong answers to the questions regarding his health, or admission in any hospital and taking treatment. The life assured withheld the correct information regarding his health, as he had met with an accident and remained admitted in the hospital on 22.06.2005 and also took medical leave from his department from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005 and after considering the claim of the respondent, the same was repudiated on the ground of false information supplied. The respondent was asked to file the representation within one month to the Zonal Office or to the Insurance Ombudsman against the repudiation, but the respondent did not do so. The earlier policies were taken w.e.f 13.09.1997 and 28.03.1998 and at that time, he was maintaining good health and the claims under those polices were rightly paid. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that there is no co-relation with the first accident and subsequent accident which resulted in the death of Sh. Sukhdev Singh on 16.06.2006. In the present case, the cause of death is purely accident and has no direct bearing to the information supplied. There is no nexus between the death of deceased on account of said accident and the information withheld, as stated by the appellant. The claim was wrongly repudiated. The complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- along with accidental benefits along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 23.02.2007 till payment and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.08.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the DLA Sh. Sukhdev Singh was coming on his scooter on 16.06.2005 and two persons, namely Jang Singh and Janak Singh were sitting behind and that was the breach of the law and as per the policy condition no.10.2 (D) (iv), the same was excluded. It was further contended that the DLA also withheld the information in the proposal form and did not disclose about the accident he met earlier and suffered fracture in his leg and remained on leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. It has been argued that the District Forum has not taken notice of these facts and the impugned order under appeal is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the previous accident had no nexus with the cause of death and the information withheld was not material and no prejudice has been caused by that to the appellant. It has been further contended that the condition about breach of law is not available, because the triple riding if, at all, is the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules and the District Forum has rightly passed the order and the appeal may be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully examined the entire record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The DLA Sh. Sukhdev Singh took leave vide application Ex.R-4 in the year 2005 from his department from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005, on the grounds that bone of the leg was fractured in the accident. In the proposal form filled on 27.12.2005, the information regarding the above accident was not given. In our opinion, the information regarding the accident in which leg of the DLA was fractured and remained on leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005, is not a material fact nor it has any nexus with the present accident. The insurance company can repudiate the claim, if the information withheld is material and not the minor informations or the information which has no direct bearing on the subsequent incident and the District Forum has rightly held so. The Honble Supreme Court in case âSatwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.â, 2009 CTJ 956 (Supreme Court) (CP) has interpreted the words âMaterial Factâ, and observed in Para- 17(relevant portion) as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> â17. The terms âmaterial factâ is not defined in the Act and, therefore, it has been understood and explained by the Courts in general terms to mean as any fact which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determining whether he would like to accept the risk. Any fact which goes to the root of the Contract of Insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be âmaterial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. The next argument regarding the term and condition of breach of law raised by the counsel for the appellant, is also not available because no specific law has been mentioned and the term âbreach of law is very vague and even considering the present case in relation with the breach of law, then also the triple riding on a scooter was breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder and not the violation of any policy. Honble National Commission in case âG. Kothainachiar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.â, IV (2007) CPJ- 34(NC) held that if the conditions of the insurance policy are violated, repudiation would be legal and valid, but if the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are violated, the authority under that Act has the right to punish the violator, but the insurer has no right to repudiate the claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid, except that the District Forum has awarded compensation and interest, but the interest and compensation cannot be awarded together.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 26.08.2008 passed by the District Forum, awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- is set aside. The remaining part of the impugned order is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Remaining amount as per the impugned order shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant within 60 days of the receipt of copy of the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 07.01.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Sukhdeep Kaur', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1107731' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'section 12', (int) 1 => 'the Consumer Protection Act', (int) 2 => 'Indian Contract Act', (int) 3 => 'the Motor Vehicle Act', (int) 4 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Inderjit Kaushik', (int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Forum', (int) 2 => 'Ludhiana', (int) 3 => 'Sukhdeep Kaur', (int) 4 => 'Sukhdev Singh S', (int) 5 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 6 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 7 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 8 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 9 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 10 => 'Lineman', (int) 11 => 'Jang Singh', (int) 12 => 'Lineman', (int) 13 => 'Janak Singh', (int) 14 => 'Lineman', (int) 15 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 16 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 17 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 18 => 'Amarvir Singh', (int) 19 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 20 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 21 => 'Nachhattar Singh', (int) 22 => 'Chandigarh', (int) 23 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 24 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 25 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 26 => 'Jang Singh', (int) 27 => 'Janak Singh', (int) 28 => 'Sukhdev Singh', (int) 29 => 'Kaur Sandhu Vs' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3.', (int) 3 => 'âbrought', (int) 4 => '4.', (int) 5 => '22.06.2005', (int) 6 => '22.06.2005', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => 'one', (int) 9 => '5.', (int) 10 => '6.', (int) 11 => 'two', (int) 12 => '28.12.2005', (int) 13 => '27.12.2005', (int) 14 => '22.06.2005', (int) 15 => '22.06.2005', (int) 16 => '8', (int) 17 => '9', (int) 18 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 19 => '10', (int) 20 => '11', (int) 21 => '12', (int) 22 => 'two', (int) 23 => '22.06.2005', (int) 24 => '13', (int) 25 => '14', (int) 26 => '15', (int) 27 => '22.06.2005', (int) 28 => '27.12.2005', (int) 29 => '22.06.2005', (int) 30 => '16', (int) 31 => '17', (int) 32 => '18', (int) 33 => '19', (int) 34 => '20', (int) 35 => '21', (int) 36 => '22' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 1 => 'District Consumer', (int) 2 => 'Smt', (int) 3 => 'Punjab State Electricity Board', (int) 4 => 'Asstt', (int) 5 => 'Goyal Hospital', (int) 6 => 'the Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 7 => 'DLA', (int) 8 => 'the Zonal Office', (int) 9 => 'District Forum', (int) 10 => 'District Forum', (int) 11 => 'DLA', (int) 12 => 'the District Forum', (int) 13 => 'the District Forum', (int) 14 => 'DLA', (int) 15 => 'the District Forum', (int) 16 => 'The Honble Supreme Court', (int) 17 => 'New India Assurance Company Ltd.â', (int) 18 => 'Supreme Court', (int) 19 => 'â17', (int) 20 => 'the Contract of Insurance', (int) 21 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act', (int) 22 => 'Honble National Commission', (int) 23 => 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd.', (int) 24 => 'the District Forum', (int) 25 => 'the District Forum', (int) 26 => 'the District Forum', (int) 27 => 'Commission', (int) 28 => 'District Forum' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'âthe District Forumâ' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1986', (int) 1 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 2 => '16.06.2006', (int) 3 => '16.06.2006', (int) 4 => '26-4734', (int) 5 => 'a rainy day', (int) 6 => '23.02.2007', (int) 7 => 'June', (int) 8 => '2005', (int) 9 => '16.06.2006 and earlier hospitalization', (int) 10 => '1872', (int) 11 => '16.06.2006', (int) 12 => 'one month', (int) 13 => '28.03.1998', (int) 14 => '16.06.2006', (int) 15 => '23.02.2007', (int) 16 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 17 => '26.08.2008', (int) 18 => '16.06.2005', (int) 19 => 'the year 2005', (int) 20 => '2009', (int) 21 => 'âbreach', (int) 22 => '26.08.2008', (int) 23 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 24 => 'Rs.25,000/-', (int) 25 => '45 days', (int) 26 => '60 days' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Actâ', (int) 1 => 'Khatra', (int) 2 => 'Baghore', (int) 3 => 'Khatra', (int) 4 => 'Bhagwan', (int) 5 => 'Singh', (int) 6 => 'p.a.', (int) 7 => 'New Delhi', (int) 8 => 'p.a.', (int) 9 => 'IV' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'no.162818811' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 2.00 p.m.', (int) 1 => 'about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m.' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '12%', (int) 1 => '9%' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rules' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1107731', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'First Appeal No.1236 of 2008 ', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Chandigarh Through Its Manager (L and Hpf) Mrs. P. Kwatra Vs. Sukhdeep Kaur', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2013-01-09', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'THE HONOURABLE MR. INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, appellant (In short âthe appellantâ) has filed this appeal against the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short âthe District Forumâ).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as âthe respondentâ) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, âthe Actâ) against the appellant, narrating that she is widow of Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Nachhattar Singh. Sh. Sukhdev Singh, since deceased, during his lifetime obtained insurance policy, insuring his life with accidental benefits, from the appellant vide policy no.162818811 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and during his lifetime, he paid the premium upto date. At the time of obtaining the policy, the life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh was examined by the doctors of the appellant and after thorough medical examination, the proposal was accepted and the above policy was issued with accidental benefits equivalent to the sum insured. The respondent was nominee under the policy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. The life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 16.06.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. Sh. Sukhdev Singh was working with Punjab State Electricity Board as Lineman and was posted in village Khatra and on 16.06.2006, he was coming on his scooter bearing no.PB-10- 26-4734 along with Jang Singh, Asstt. Lineman and Janak Singh, Lineman from village Baghore to Khatra. The scooter rider was life assured Sukhdev Singh. It was a rainy day and the road was slippery and when the life assured reached near the fields of Bhagwan Singh resident of village Baghor at about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., the scooter suddenly slipped and the life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh received multiple and grievious injuries and the other occupants also received minor injuries. The life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh was immediately rushed to Goyal Hospital and later on, to Amarvir Singh where he was declared âbrought dead. The postmortem was conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. After the death of the life assured, the respondent lodged the claim with the appellant for reimbursement of the sum insured along with accidental benefits and supplied all the necessary documents for settlement of the claim, but the claim was not settled and ultimately, vide letter dated 23.02.2007 the claim of the respondent was repudiated illegally and arbitrarily on the grounds that the life assured has given false answers in the proposal form, as he remained admitted in the hospital in June, 2005 on account of earlier accident and was on medical leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. The repudiation is wrong and illegal and is liable to set aside, as there is no nexus between death of the insured on 16.06.2006 and earlier hospitalization or medical leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. The life assured did not conceal any material fact. The respondent also obtained two insurance policies and the claim pertaining to death of life assured Sukhdev Singh was paid to Sh. Nachhattar Singh, father of the insured and said Nachhattar Singh, being nominee accepted the amount for disbursement to the legal heirs. The appellant cannot accept one claim and reject the other claim. The admission on account of earlier accident has no relevance. The repudiation of the claim on flimsy grounds amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The respondent suffered mental tension, torture and financial loss and is entitled to compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. It was prayed that the appellant may be directed to pay the sum insured along with accidental benefits, bonus under the policy in question, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of lodging the claim till payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellant, the preliminary objections were raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The respondent has not filed the appeal before the Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi or the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh. The contract of insurance is per-se different from the ordinary forms of the contract and falls within the purview of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The contract of insurance is based on the principles of âUberrimafide i.e. utmost good faith.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent was a nominee under the policy. The said case was a non-medical case and the examination was not required. It was also admitted that Sh. Sukhdev Singh died in the motor vehicle accident on 16.06.2006. The deceased life assured (in short âDLA) was having only learning licence and two persons were sitting on his scooter and he breached the law of the land. The DLA had taken policy for Rs.50,000/-on 28.12.2005 and submitted the proposal and personal statement of good health on 27.12.2005. The proposal was accepted on the basis of utmost good faith and the policy was issued. In the proposal form, the life assured gave wrong answers to the questions regarding his health, or admission in any hospital and taking treatment. The life assured withheld the correct information regarding his health, as he had met with an accident and remained admitted in the hospital on 22.06.2005 and also took medical leave from his department from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005 and after considering the claim of the respondent, the same was repudiated on the ground of false information supplied. The respondent was asked to file the representation within one month to the Zonal Office or to the Insurance Ombudsman against the repudiation, but the respondent did not do so. The earlier policies were taken w.e.f 13.09.1997 and 28.03.1998 and at that time, he was maintaining good health and the claims under those polices were rightly paid. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that there is no co-relation with the first accident and subsequent accident which resulted in the death of Sh. Sukhdev Singh on 16.06.2006. In the present case, the cause of death is purely accident and has no direct bearing to the information supplied. There is no nexus between the death of deceased on account of said accident and the information withheld, as stated by the appellant. The claim was wrongly repudiated. The complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- along with accidental benefits along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 23.02.2007 till payment and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.08.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the DLA Sh. Sukhdev Singh was coming on his scooter on 16.06.2005 and two persons, namely Jang Singh and Janak Singh were sitting behind and that was the breach of the law and as per the policy condition no.10.2 (D) (iv), the same was excluded. It was further contended that the DLA also withheld the information in the proposal form and did not disclose about the accident he met earlier and suffered fracture in his leg and remained on leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005. It has been argued that the District Forum has not taken notice of these facts and the impugned order under appeal is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the previous accident had no nexus with the cause of death and the information withheld was not material and no prejudice has been caused by that to the appellant. It has been further contended that the condition about breach of law is not available, because the triple riding if, at all, is the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules and the District Forum has rightly passed the order and the appeal may be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully examined the entire record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The DLA Sh. Sukhdev Singh took leave vide application Ex.R-4 in the year 2005 from his department from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005, on the grounds that bone of the leg was fractured in the accident. In the proposal form filled on 27.12.2005, the information regarding the above accident was not given. In our opinion, the information regarding the accident in which leg of the DLA was fractured and remained on leave from 22.06.2005 to 05.08.2005, is not a material fact nor it has any nexus with the present accident. The insurance company can repudiate the claim, if the information withheld is material and not the minor informations or the information which has no direct bearing on the subsequent incident and the District Forum has rightly held so. The Honble Supreme Court in case âSatwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.â, 2009 CTJ 956 (Supreme Court) (CP) has interpreted the words âMaterial Factâ, and observed in Para- 17(relevant portion) as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> â17. The terms âmaterial factâ is not defined in the Act and, therefore, it has been understood and explained by the Courts in general terms to mean as any fact which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determining whether he would like to accept the risk. Any fact which goes to the root of the Contract of Insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be âmaterial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. The next argument regarding the term and condition of breach of law raised by the counsel for the appellant, is also not available because no specific law has been mentioned and the term âbreach of law is very vague and even considering the present case in relation with the breach of law, then also the triple riding on a scooter was breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder and not the violation of any policy. Honble National Commission in case âG. Kothainachiar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.â, IV (2007) CPJ- 34(NC) held that if the conditions of the insurance policy are violated, repudiation would be legal and valid, but if the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are violated, the authority under that Act has the right to punish the violator, but the insurer has no right to repudiate the claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid, except that the District Forum has awarded compensation and interest, but the interest and compensation cannot be awarded together.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 26.08.2008 passed by the District Forum, awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- is set aside. The remaining part of the impugned order is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. Remaining amount as per the impugned order shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant within 60 days of the receipt of copy of the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 07.01.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Sukhdeep Kaur', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1107731' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: section 12, the Consumer Protection Act, Indian Contract Act, the Motor Vehicle Act, the Motor Vehicles Act
PERSON: Inderjit Kaushik, Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, Sukhdeep Kaur, Sukhdev Singh S, Nachhattar Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Lineman, Jang Singh, Lineman, Janak Singh, Lineman, Sukhdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Amarvir Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Chandigarh, Sukhdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Jang Singh, Janak Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Kaur Sandhu Vs
CARDINAL: 1, 2, 3., âbrought, 4., 22.06.2005, 22.06.2005, two, one, 5., 6., two, 28.12.2005, 27.12.2005, 22.06.2005, 22.06.2005, 8, 9, Rs.50,000/-, 10, 11, 12, two, 22.06.2005, 13, 14, 15, 22.06.2005, 27.12.2005, 22.06.2005, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
ORG: Life Insurance Corporation of India, District Consumer, Smt, Punjab State Electricity Board, Asstt, Goyal Hospital, the Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, DLA, the Zonal Office, District Forum, District Forum, DLA, the District Forum, the District Forum, DLA, the District Forum, The Honble Supreme Court, New India Assurance Company Ltd.â, Supreme Court, â17, the Contract of Insurance, the Motor Vehicles Act, Honble National Commission, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the District Forum, the District Forum, the District Forum, Commission, District Forum
FAC: âthe District Forumâ
DATE: 1986, Rs.50,000/-, 16.06.2006, 16.06.2006, 26-4734, a rainy day, 23.02.2007, June, 2005, 16.06.2006 and earlier hospitalization, 1872, 16.06.2006, one month, 28.03.1998, 16.06.2006, 23.02.2007, Rs.10,000/-, 26.08.2008, 16.06.2005, the year 2005, 2009, âbreach, 26.08.2008, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, 45 days, 60 days
GPE: Actâ, Khatra, Baghore, Khatra, Bhagwan, Singh, p.a., New Delhi, p.a., IV
WORK_OF_ART: no.162818811
TIME: about 2.00 p.m., about 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m.
PERCENT: 12%, 9%
ORDINAL: first
NORP: Rules