Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Sadanand Bag Vs. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another
Decided On : Jul-12-2012
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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' => 'Sadanand Bag Vs. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 21(b', (int) 1 => 'the Consumer Protection Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.K. NAIK', (int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Forum', (int) 2 => 'Shri D.B. Ray', (int) 3 => 'Anr', (int) 4 => 'Satwant Kaur' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '216', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => 'two', (int) 4 => 'one', (int) 5 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 6 => '3.', (int) 7 => '4.', (int) 8 => '5', (int) 9 => '8', (int) 10 => '319', (int) 11 => '6.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '16.02.2006', (int) 1 => '2006', (int) 2 => '1986', (int) 3 => 'Rs.80,000/-', (int) 4 => '15th of January, 2001', (int) 5 => '15th of January, 2002', (int) 6 => 'the 18th of August', (int) 7 => '2003', (int) 8 => 'a few months', (int) 9 => 'the 12th of October, 2003', (int) 10 => 'years', (int) 11 => 'only six days', (int) 12 => 'many years', (int) 13 => 'many years', (int) 14 => 'her only few months', (int) 15 => '2008', (int) 16 => '2009' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Consumer', (int) 1 => 'the Orissa State', (int) 2 => 'Disputes Redressal Commission', (int) 3 => 'Cuttack (State Commission', (int) 4 => 'the District Forum', (int) 5 => 'the State Commission', (int) 6 => 'the District Forum', (int) 7 => 'the State Commission', (int) 8 => 'Shri Pankul Nagpal', (int) 9 => 'the State Commission', (int) 10 => 'The State Commission', (int) 11 => 'The Supreme Court', (int) 12 => 'P.C. Chacko', (int) 13 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors', (int) 14 => 'Sandhu', (int) 15 => 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd.', (int) 16 => 'the Insurance Company', (int) 17 => 'the State Commission' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'Rs.1,30,000/-' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '9%' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'First' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '1 SCC 321' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1147031', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Revision Petition No. 4208 of 2007 in Appeal No. 216 of 2006 ', 'appellant' => 'Sadanand Bag', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Sadanand Bag Vs. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b); Cases Referred: 1. P.C. Chacko and Anr. v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors., 2008 (3) CPJ 78 (SC) = 2007 (9) SLT 533 = 2007 (4) ACC 773 (SC) = 2007 (4) CLT 229 (SC). (Relied) [Para 5] 2. Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (4) CPJ 8 (SC) = 2009 (6) SLT 338. (Relied) [Para 5] Comparative Citation: 2012 (3) CPJ 398', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2012-07-12', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><u>S.K. NAIK, MEMBER</u></strong><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Aggrieved upon the reversal of the order dated 16.02.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bargarh (For short the District Forum) in his favour directing the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay Rs.1,30,000/- in terms of the policy obtained by him along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim with a cost of Rs.1000/-, by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (State Commission for short) in First Appeal No. 216 of 2006, thereby dismissing his complaint; the complainant has filed this revision petition to invoke our jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner/complainant had taken two life insurance policies, one for Rs.80,000/- and the other for Rs.50,000/- on 15<sup>th</sup> of January, 2001 and 15<sup>th</sup> of January, 2002 respectively from the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. However, policy no. 591395681 for Rs.80,000/- had lapsed for non-payment of premium, which was revived on the 18<sup>th</sup> of August, 2003 by filing a fresh declaration of good health. The life assured within a few months thereafter died on the 12<sup>th</sup> of October, 2003. The petitioner/husband being the nominee of the deceased under the policies thereafter filed a claim before the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was repudiated by them on the ground of suppression of material facts, compelling the petitioner and his children to file a complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was contested by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. On appreciation of the evidence and material produced before it and after hearing the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay the amount, as already stated above. Dissatisfied with the award against them, the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India filed an appeal before the State Commission, who vide the order impugned has accepted their appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum, resulting in the dismissal of the petitioners complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Aggrieved with the order disentitling him of the award passed by the State Commission that the husband of the life assured has filed this revision petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. We have heard Shri D.B. Ray, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and Shri Pankul Nagpal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. The short point for adjudication is as to whether the State Commission was right in holding that there was a suppression of material facts by the life assured with regard to the status of her health at the time of obtaining the policy or subsequent revival thereof. The State Commission relying on the entries in the medical attendants certificate has held that the life assured had deliberately withheld the information with regard to her suffering for a number of years from oesphageal perforation and had wrongly declared that she was in good health. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would contend that the life assured died of hemorrhaging shock (excessive bleeding), as a result of oesphageal perforation which developed only six days prior to her death and not many years ago as alleged by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. He further contends that had the life assured been suffering from any serious ailment, that would have been clearly reflected in the doctors examination conducted before issuance of the policy. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would not help his case as the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India has explained that there was no medical examination of the life assured prior to her taking the policies as they were in the nature of general life insurance policies and not mediclaim policies. The counsel for the petitioner/complainant has not been able to show as to when and who conducted such a medical examination, if the same was at all conducted. Further, despite an opportunity, the petitioner/complainant has not been able to produce any medical literature to show that a person suffering from oesphageal perforation cannot live for many years. On the face of the entries on the medical attendants certificate clearly stating that the life assured had been suffering from the disease for many years and the life assured having certified that she was in good health in the declaration furnished by her only few months prior to her death, it cannot but be said that there has been a clear suppression of material fact with regard to her ailment. The factum of insurance being based on the principle of uberrima fides, it was incumbent upon the life assured-deceased to have faithfully disclosed that she had been suffering from the said ailment. The Supreme Court in the case of <strong>P.C. Chacko and Anr. V. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. [(2008) 1 SCC 321]</strong> and later in the case of <strong>Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 8 SCC 319]</strong> in unequivocal terms has clearly held that when there is a suppression of material fact by the life assured in relation to his health, the Insurance Company cannot be compelled to pay the insurance amount to the life assured.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and, accordingly, dismiss the revision petition with no order as to cost.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1147031' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sadanand Bag Vs. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 21(b', (int) 1 => 'the Consumer Protection Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.K. NAIK', (int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Forum', (int) 2 => 'Shri D.B. Ray', (int) 3 => 'Anr', (int) 4 => 'Satwant Kaur' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '216', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => 'two', (int) 4 => 'one', (int) 5 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 6 => '3.', (int) 7 => '4.', (int) 8 => '5', (int) 9 => '8', (int) 10 => '319', (int) 11 => '6.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '16.02.2006', (int) 1 => '2006', (int) 2 => '1986', (int) 3 => 'Rs.80,000/-', (int) 4 => '15th of January, 2001', (int) 5 => '15th of January, 2002', (int) 6 => 'the 18th of August', (int) 7 => '2003', (int) 8 => 'a few months', (int) 9 => 'the 12th of October, 2003', (int) 10 => 'years', (int) 11 => 'only six days', (int) 12 => 'many years', (int) 13 => 'many years', (int) 14 => 'her only few months', (int) 15 => '2008', (int) 16 => '2009' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Consumer', (int) 1 => 'the Orissa State', (int) 2 => 'Disputes Redressal Commission', (int) 3 => 'Cuttack (State Commission', (int) 4 => 'the District Forum', (int) 5 => 'the State Commission', (int) 6 => 'the District Forum', (int) 7 => 'the State Commission', (int) 8 => 'Shri Pankul Nagpal', (int) 9 => 'the State Commission', (int) 10 => 'The State Commission', (int) 11 => 'The Supreme Court', (int) 12 => 'P.C. Chacko', (int) 13 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors', (int) 14 => 'Sandhu', (int) 15 => 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd.', (int) 16 => 'the Insurance Company', (int) 17 => 'the State Commission' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'Rs.1,30,000/-' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '9%' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'First' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '1 SCC 321' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1147031', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Revision Petition No. 4208 of 2007 in Appeal No. 216 of 2006 ', 'appellant' => 'Sadanand Bag', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Sadanand Bag Vs. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b); Cases Referred: 1. P.C. Chacko and Anr. v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors., 2008 (3) CPJ 78 (SC) = 2007 (9) SLT 533 = 2007 (4) ACC 773 (SC) = 2007 (4) CLT 229 (SC). (Relied) [Para 5] 2. Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (4) CPJ 8 (SC) = 2009 (6) SLT 338. (Relied) [Para 5] Comparative Citation: 2012 (3) CPJ 398', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2012-07-12', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><u>S.K. NAIK, MEMBER</u></strong><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Aggrieved upon the reversal of the order dated 16.02.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bargarh (For short the District Forum) in his favour directing the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay Rs.1,30,000/- in terms of the policy obtained by him along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim with a cost of Rs.1000/-, by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (State Commission for short) in First Appeal No. 216 of 2006, thereby dismissing his complaint; the complainant has filed this revision petition to invoke our jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner/complainant had taken two life insurance policies, one for Rs.80,000/- and the other for Rs.50,000/- on 15<sup>th</sup> of January, 2001 and 15<sup>th</sup> of January, 2002 respectively from the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. However, policy no. 591395681 for Rs.80,000/- had lapsed for non-payment of premium, which was revived on the 18<sup>th</sup> of August, 2003 by filing a fresh declaration of good health. The life assured within a few months thereafter died on the 12<sup>th</sup> of October, 2003. The petitioner/husband being the nominee of the deceased under the policies thereafter filed a claim before the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was repudiated by them on the ground of suppression of material facts, compelling the petitioner and his children to file a complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was contested by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. On appreciation of the evidence and material produced before it and after hearing the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay the amount, as already stated above. Dissatisfied with the award against them, the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India filed an appeal before the State Commission, who vide the order impugned has accepted their appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum, resulting in the dismissal of the petitioners complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Aggrieved with the order disentitling him of the award passed by the State Commission that the husband of the life assured has filed this revision petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. We have heard Shri D.B. Ray, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and Shri Pankul Nagpal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. The short point for adjudication is as to whether the State Commission was right in holding that there was a suppression of material facts by the life assured with regard to the status of her health at the time of obtaining the policy or subsequent revival thereof. The State Commission relying on the entries in the medical attendants certificate has held that the life assured had deliberately withheld the information with regard to her suffering for a number of years from oesphageal perforation and had wrongly declared that she was in good health. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would contend that the life assured died of hemorrhaging shock (excessive bleeding), as a result of oesphageal perforation which developed only six days prior to her death and not many years ago as alleged by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. He further contends that had the life assured been suffering from any serious ailment, that would have been clearly reflected in the doctors examination conducted before issuance of the policy. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would not help his case as the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India has explained that there was no medical examination of the life assured prior to her taking the policies as they were in the nature of general life insurance policies and not mediclaim policies. The counsel for the petitioner/complainant has not been able to show as to when and who conducted such a medical examination, if the same was at all conducted. Further, despite an opportunity, the petitioner/complainant has not been able to produce any medical literature to show that a person suffering from oesphageal perforation cannot live for many years. On the face of the entries on the medical attendants certificate clearly stating that the life assured had been suffering from the disease for many years and the life assured having certified that she was in good health in the declaration furnished by her only few months prior to her death, it cannot but be said that there has been a clear suppression of material fact with regard to her ailment. The factum of insurance being based on the principle of uberrima fides, it was incumbent upon the life assured-deceased to have faithfully disclosed that she had been suffering from the said ailment. The Supreme Court in the case of <strong>P.C. Chacko and Anr. V. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. [(2008) 1 SCC 321]</strong> and later in the case of <strong>Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 8 SCC 319]</strong> in unequivocal terms has clearly held that when there is a suppression of material fact by the life assured in relation to his health, the Insurance Company cannot be compelled to pay the insurance amount to the life assured.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and, accordingly, dismiss the revision petition with no order as to cost.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1147031' ) $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' => 'Sadanand Bag Vs. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 21(b', (int) 1 => 'the Consumer Protection Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.K. NAIK', (int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Forum', (int) 2 => 'Shri D.B. Ray', (int) 3 => 'Anr', (int) 4 => 'Satwant Kaur' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '216', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => 'two', (int) 4 => 'one', (int) 5 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 6 => '3.', (int) 7 => '4.', (int) 8 => '5', (int) 9 => '8', (int) 10 => '319', (int) 11 => '6.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '16.02.2006', (int) 1 => '2006', (int) 2 => '1986', (int) 3 => 'Rs.80,000/-', (int) 4 => '15th of January, 2001', (int) 5 => '15th of January, 2002', (int) 6 => 'the 18th of August', (int) 7 => '2003', (int) 8 => 'a few months', (int) 9 => 'the 12th of October, 2003', (int) 10 => 'years', (int) 11 => 'only six days', (int) 12 => 'many years', (int) 13 => 'many years', (int) 14 => 'her only few months', (int) 15 => '2008', (int) 16 => '2009' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Consumer', (int) 1 => 'the Orissa State', (int) 2 => 'Disputes Redressal Commission', (int) 3 => 'Cuttack (State Commission', (int) 4 => 'the District Forum', (int) 5 => 'the State Commission', (int) 6 => 'the District Forum', (int) 7 => 'the State Commission', (int) 8 => 'Shri Pankul Nagpal', (int) 9 => 'the State Commission', (int) 10 => 'The State Commission', (int) 11 => 'The Supreme Court', (int) 12 => 'P.C. Chacko', (int) 13 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors', (int) 14 => 'Sandhu', (int) 15 => 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd.', (int) 16 => 'the Insurance Company', (int) 17 => 'the State Commission' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'Rs.1,30,000/-' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '9%' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'First' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '1 SCC 321' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1147031', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Revision Petition No. 4208 of 2007 in Appeal No. 216 of 2006 ', 'appellant' => 'Sadanand Bag', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Sadanand Bag Vs. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b); Cases Referred: 1. P.C. Chacko and Anr. v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors., 2008 (3) CPJ 78 (SC) = 2007 (9) SLT 533 = 2007 (4) ACC 773 (SC) = 2007 (4) CLT 229 (SC). (Relied) [Para 5] 2. Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (4) CPJ 8 (SC) = 2009 (6) SLT 338. (Relied) [Para 5] Comparative Citation: 2012 (3) CPJ 398', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2012-07-12', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><u>S.K. NAIK, MEMBER</u></strong><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Aggrieved upon the reversal of the order dated 16.02.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bargarh (For short the District Forum) in his favour directing the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay Rs.1,30,000/- in terms of the policy obtained by him along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim with a cost of Rs.1000/-, by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (State Commission for short) in First Appeal No. 216 of 2006, thereby dismissing his complaint; the complainant has filed this revision petition to invoke our jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner/complainant had taken two life insurance policies, one for Rs.80,000/- and the other for Rs.50,000/- on 15<sup>th</sup> of January, 2001 and 15<sup>th</sup> of January, 2002 respectively from the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. However, policy no. 591395681 for Rs.80,000/- had lapsed for non-payment of premium, which was revived on the 18<sup>th</sup> of August, 2003 by filing a fresh declaration of good health. The life assured within a few months thereafter died on the 12<sup>th</sup> of October, 2003. The petitioner/husband being the nominee of the deceased under the policies thereafter filed a claim before the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was repudiated by them on the ground of suppression of material facts, compelling the petitioner and his children to file a complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was contested by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. On appreciation of the evidence and material produced before it and after hearing the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay the amount, as already stated above. Dissatisfied with the award against them, the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India filed an appeal before the State Commission, who vide the order impugned has accepted their appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum, resulting in the dismissal of the petitioners complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Aggrieved with the order disentitling him of the award passed by the State Commission that the husband of the life assured has filed this revision petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. We have heard Shri D.B. Ray, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and Shri Pankul Nagpal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. The short point for adjudication is as to whether the State Commission was right in holding that there was a suppression of material facts by the life assured with regard to the status of her health at the time of obtaining the policy or subsequent revival thereof. The State Commission relying on the entries in the medical attendants certificate has held that the life assured had deliberately withheld the information with regard to her suffering for a number of years from oesphageal perforation and had wrongly declared that she was in good health. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would contend that the life assured died of hemorrhaging shock (excessive bleeding), as a result of oesphageal perforation which developed only six days prior to her death and not many years ago as alleged by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. He further contends that had the life assured been suffering from any serious ailment, that would have been clearly reflected in the doctors examination conducted before issuance of the policy. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would not help his case as the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India has explained that there was no medical examination of the life assured prior to her taking the policies as they were in the nature of general life insurance policies and not mediclaim policies. The counsel for the petitioner/complainant has not been able to show as to when and who conducted such a medical examination, if the same was at all conducted. Further, despite an opportunity, the petitioner/complainant has not been able to produce any medical literature to show that a person suffering from oesphageal perforation cannot live for many years. On the face of the entries on the medical attendants certificate clearly stating that the life assured had been suffering from the disease for many years and the life assured having certified that she was in good health in the declaration furnished by her only few months prior to her death, it cannot but be said that there has been a clear suppression of material fact with regard to her ailment. The factum of insurance being based on the principle of uberrima fides, it was incumbent upon the life assured-deceased to have faithfully disclosed that she had been suffering from the said ailment. The Supreme Court in the case of <strong>P.C. Chacko and Anr. V. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. [(2008) 1 SCC 321]</strong> and later in the case of <strong>Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 8 SCC 319]</strong> in unequivocal terms has clearly held that when there is a suppression of material fact by the life assured in relation to his health, the Insurance Company cannot be compelled to pay the insurance amount to the life assured.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and, accordingly, dismiss the revision petition with no order as to cost.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1147031' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sadanand Bag Vs. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 21(b', (int) 1 => 'the Consumer Protection Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'S.K. NAIK', (int) 1 => 'Disputes Redressal Forum', (int) 2 => 'Shri D.B. Ray', (int) 3 => 'Anr', (int) 4 => 'Satwant Kaur' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '216', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => 'two', (int) 4 => 'one', (int) 5 => 'Rs.50,000/-', (int) 6 => '3.', (int) 7 => '4.', (int) 8 => '5', (int) 9 => '8', (int) 10 => '319', (int) 11 => '6.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '16.02.2006', (int) 1 => '2006', (int) 2 => '1986', (int) 3 => 'Rs.80,000/-', (int) 4 => '15th of January, 2001', (int) 5 => '15th of January, 2002', (int) 6 => 'the 18th of August', (int) 7 => '2003', (int) 8 => 'a few months', (int) 9 => 'the 12th of October, 2003', (int) 10 => 'years', (int) 11 => 'only six days', (int) 12 => 'many years', (int) 13 => 'many years', (int) 14 => 'her only few months', (int) 15 => '2008', (int) 16 => '2009' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Consumer', (int) 1 => 'the Orissa State', (int) 2 => 'Disputes Redressal Commission', (int) 3 => 'Cuttack (State Commission', (int) 4 => 'the District Forum', (int) 5 => 'the State Commission', (int) 6 => 'the District Forum', (int) 7 => 'the State Commission', (int) 8 => 'Shri Pankul Nagpal', (int) 9 => 'the State Commission', (int) 10 => 'The State Commission', (int) 11 => 'The Supreme Court', (int) 12 => 'P.C. Chacko', (int) 13 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors', (int) 14 => 'Sandhu', (int) 15 => 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd.', (int) 16 => 'the Insurance Company', (int) 17 => 'the State Commission' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'Rs.1,30,000/-' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '9%' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'First' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '1 SCC 321' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1147031', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Revision Petition No. 4208 of 2007 in Appeal No. 216 of 2006 ', 'appellant' => 'Sadanand Bag', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Sadanand Bag Vs. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b); Cases Referred: 1. P.C. Chacko and Anr. v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors., 2008 (3) CPJ 78 (SC) = 2007 (9) SLT 533 = 2007 (4) ACC 773 (SC) = 2007 (4) CLT 229 (SC). (Relied) [Para 5] 2. Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (4) CPJ 8 (SC) = 2009 (6) SLT 338. (Relied) [Para 5] Comparative Citation: 2012 (3) CPJ 398', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2012-07-12', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><u>S.K. NAIK, MEMBER</u></strong><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. Aggrieved upon the reversal of the order dated 16.02.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bargarh (For short the District Forum) in his favour directing the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay Rs.1,30,000/- in terms of the policy obtained by him along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim with a cost of Rs.1000/-, by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (State Commission for short) in First Appeal No. 216 of 2006, thereby dismissing his complaint; the complainant has filed this revision petition to invoke our jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner/complainant had taken two life insurance policies, one for Rs.80,000/- and the other for Rs.50,000/- on 15<sup>th</sup> of January, 2001 and 15<sup>th</sup> of January, 2002 respectively from the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. However, policy no. 591395681 for Rs.80,000/- had lapsed for non-payment of premium, which was revived on the 18<sup>th</sup> of August, 2003 by filing a fresh declaration of good health. The life assured within a few months thereafter died on the 12<sup>th</sup> of October, 2003. The petitioner/husband being the nominee of the deceased under the policies thereafter filed a claim before the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was repudiated by them on the ground of suppression of material facts, compelling the petitioner and his children to file a complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was contested by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. On appreciation of the evidence and material produced before it and after hearing the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay the amount, as already stated above. Dissatisfied with the award against them, the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India filed an appeal before the State Commission, who vide the order impugned has accepted their appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum, resulting in the dismissal of the petitioners complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Aggrieved with the order disentitling him of the award passed by the State Commission that the husband of the life assured has filed this revision petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. We have heard Shri D.B. Ray, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and Shri Pankul Nagpal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. The short point for adjudication is as to whether the State Commission was right in holding that there was a suppression of material facts by the life assured with regard to the status of her health at the time of obtaining the policy or subsequent revival thereof. The State Commission relying on the entries in the medical attendants certificate has held that the life assured had deliberately withheld the information with regard to her suffering for a number of years from oesphageal perforation and had wrongly declared that she was in good health. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would contend that the life assured died of hemorrhaging shock (excessive bleeding), as a result of oesphageal perforation which developed only six days prior to her death and not many years ago as alleged by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. He further contends that had the life assured been suffering from any serious ailment, that would have been clearly reflected in the doctors examination conducted before issuance of the policy. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would not help his case as the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India has explained that there was no medical examination of the life assured prior to her taking the policies as they were in the nature of general life insurance policies and not mediclaim policies. The counsel for the petitioner/complainant has not been able to show as to when and who conducted such a medical examination, if the same was at all conducted. Further, despite an opportunity, the petitioner/complainant has not been able to produce any medical literature to show that a person suffering from oesphageal perforation cannot live for many years. On the face of the entries on the medical attendants certificate clearly stating that the life assured had been suffering from the disease for many years and the life assured having certified that she was in good health in the declaration furnished by her only few months prior to her death, it cannot but be said that there has been a clear suppression of material fact with regard to her ailment. The factum of insurance being based on the principle of uberrima fides, it was incumbent upon the life assured-deceased to have faithfully disclosed that she had been suffering from the said ailment. The Supreme Court in the case of <strong>P.C. Chacko and Anr. V. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. [(2008) 1 SCC 321]</strong> and later in the case of <strong>Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 8 SCC 319]</strong> in unequivocal terms has clearly held that when there is a suppression of material fact by the life assured in relation to his health, the Insurance Company cannot be compelled to pay the insurance amount to the life assured.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and, accordingly, dismiss the revision petition with no order as to cost.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Sambalpur and Another', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1147031' ) $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 21(b, the Consumer Protection Act
PERSON: S.K. NAIK, Disputes Redressal Forum, Shri D.B. Ray, Anr, Satwant Kaur
CARDINAL: 1, 216, 2, two, one, Rs.50,000/-, 3., 4., 5, 8, 319, 6.
DATE: 16.02.2006, 2006, 1986, Rs.80,000/-, 15th of January, 2001, 15th of January, 2002, the 18th of August, 2003, a few months, the 12th of October, 2003, years, only six days, many years, many years, her only few months, 2008, 2009
ORG: the District Consumer, the Orissa State, Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (State Commission, the District Forum, the State Commission, the District Forum, the State Commission, Shri Pankul Nagpal, the State Commission, The State Commission, The Supreme Court, P.C. Chacko, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors, Sandhu, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Insurance Company, the State Commission
FAC: the District Forum, Rs.1,30,000/-
PERCENT: 9%
ORDINAL: First
QUANTITY: 1 SCC 321