Appeal Nos. 395 and 357 of 1999. Case: Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Ram Das Jatav. Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Appeal Nos. 395 and 357 of 1999 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.K. Gupta, Advocate and For Respondents: V.S. Bisaria, Advocate |
| Judges | A.K. Bose, Presiding Member and Sanjai Kumar, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | III (2015) CPJ 16 (UP) |
| Judgement Date | May 25, 2015 |
| Court | Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
A.K. Bose, Presiding Member
-
Appeal No. 395 of 1999, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ram Das Jatav and Appeal No. 357 of 1999, Ram Das Jatav v. Life Insurance Corporation of India are cross-appeals and have arisen out of the judgment and order dated 16.1.1999 in complaint case No. 314 of 1997 passed by the learned DCDRF, Shahjahanpur. The appeal filed by the LIC is for setting aside the impugned judgment and order; whereas its cross appeal No. 357 of 1999 is for enhancement of the decretal amount. Since both the appeals are supplementary and complimentary to each other, therefore, both the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the life insured Om Prakash Jatav obtained one life insurance policy bearing No. 220663347 for a sum assured of Rs. 50,000.00 on 28.9.1993. He expired on 11.11.1993, as a result of dog bite. Consequently, his brother Ram Das Jatav (complainant) filed claim before the LIC for payment of the sum assured. However, the claim was repudiated on ground of concealment of material fact relating to the status of the health of the insured. This LIC took the pleas that dog bite had taken place in the month of May, 1993, whereas the policy was obtained on 28.9.1993 and the death took place on 11.11.1993. The Forum below on the basis of facts, circumstances and evidence on record observed that the LIC, in order to escape liability of payment, manufactured unreliable and untenable documents and, therefore, it ordered the LIC to pay to the complainant the amount insured under the policy with all consequential benefits. Admittedly, there is no medical report that the death had actually occurred due to Hydrophobia/dog bite. No medical report or diagnostic report or even prescription relating to line of treatment has been filed. The LIC admits that they have no report even regarding the exact date of dog bite and the medicines taken by the deceased in connection with the same. It took the defence on the basis of certain oral evidence that the incident of...
To continue reading
Request your trial