Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 218 (UTT)

SAROJ GUPTA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

2014-05-16

B.C.KANDPAL, C.C.PANT

body2014
ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 01 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that late Sh. Surendra Kumar Gupta was the deceased husband of the complainant – Smt. Saroj Gupta and he died on 08.08.2005. Late Sh. Surendra Kumar Gupta approached the opposite party No. 1 – State Bank of India, Main Branch, Rishikesh for obtaining housing loan and completed the entire formalities for obtaining the housing loan. The deceased was also offered to take a life insurance policy of the opposite party No. 2 – SBI Life Insurance Company Limited. The deceased submitted the form with the bank. The bank sanctioned a housing loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the deceased on 25.04.2005, which was to be repaid in 180 monthly installments of Rs. 4,340/- each. The life of the deceased was also insured with the opposite party No. 2 and a certificate to this effect was issued on 21.04.2005. The premium of the policy was paid to the insurance company from the loan account of the deceased. However, the deceased died on 08.08.2005 on account of cardiac arrest. The complainant lodged the claim, which was repudiated by the insurance company. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The opposite party No. 1 – bank filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on receipt of the claim, the same was forwarded to the opposite party No. 2; that the opposite party No. 2 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 08.03.2006; that the deceased paid the loan installments till July, 2005 and thereafter no amount was paid by the legal heirs of the deceased; that a bank has instituted a recovery suit against the complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased for recovery of Rs. 4,86,110/- bearing Suit No. 403 of 2006; State Bank of India Vs. Smt. Saroj Gupta and others and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. 4,86,110/- bearing Suit No. 403 of 2006; State Bank of India Vs. Smt. Saroj Gupta and others and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The opposite party No. 2 – insurance company also filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that a Master Policy No. 83001000203 was issued in favour of the deceased life assured; that the life assured had died on 08.08.2005 on account of cardiac arrest; that the policy remained effective only for a period of three months’ and 14 days’; that on investigation of the matter, it was found that the life assured was taking treatment for angina and hypertension for the last three years, which fact was suppressed by him in the proposal form; that the claim was rightly repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 11.11.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal. 6. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 – bank. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant – complainant and respondent No. 2 – insurance company and have also perused the record. 7. The policy in question was purchased by the life assured on 25.04.2005 and he died on 08.08.2005, i.e., after a period of three months’ and 14 days’ of commencement of the policy. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the life assured died on account of cardiac arrest / heart failure, which has also been mentioned in the claim form. The insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant per letter dated 08.03.2006 on the ground that the life assured was suffering from hypertension and angina prior to the date of enrollment of the policy and he had given a false good health declaration at the time of taking the policy. 8. There is certificate dated 04.03.2006 issued by Dr. N.B. Srivastava of Uttaranchal Heart Care Centre (Paper No. 15kha/12 of the original record), wherein it has been mentioned that the life assured was under his treatment as an OPD patient in connection with hypertension and angina for the last three years. As is stated above, the policy in question was obtained by the life assured on 25.04.2005. N.B. Srivastava of Uttaranchal Heart Care Centre (Paper No. 15kha/12 of the original record), wherein it has been mentioned that the life assured was under his treatment as an OPD patient in connection with hypertension and angina for the last three years. As is stated above, the policy in question was obtained by the life assured on 25.04.2005. Thus, on the date of taking the policy, the life assured was suffering from hypertension and angina and he did not disclose this fact in the proposal form. Also, in the death certificate dated 08.08.2005 of the life assured issued by Dr. N.B. Srivastava of Uttaranchal Heart Care Centre (Paper No. 15kha/13), it has been mentioned that the life assured was under his treatment as an OPD patient for hypertension and angina and he expired due to sudden cardiac arrest on 08.08.2005 at 10:30 p.m. Thus, there is no shadow of doubt that on the date of taking the policy, the life assured was suffering from hypertension and angina and he deliberately suppressed this material information with regard to his health in the proposal form. There is yet another certificate dated 06.08.2007 issued by Dr. N.B. Srivastava of Uttaranchal Heart Care Centre (Paper No. 17kha/7), wherein it has been mentioned that the life assured was under his treatment at the time of his death and he was having hypertension since last three years and was getting treatment for the same. It has also been mentioned in the said certificate that the life assured developed angina 15-20 days’ before his death. It is important to mention here that the said certificate was obtained after filing of the consumer complaint on 03.01.2007 and by the said certificate dated 06.08.2007, the previous medical certificate and the death certificate issued by the same doctor was sought to be overcome/clarified. But along with the certificate dated 06.08.2007, no affidavit of the issuing doctor was filed and it appears that the same was procured by the complainant with a view to overcome the defence taken by the insurance company in the case and the same clearly appears to be an afterthought on the part of the complainant and no reliance can be placed on the said certificate. In the said certificate dated 06.08.2007, the issuing doctor has also not mentioned that the contents of his earlier certificate dated 04.03.2006 and those of the death certificate dated 08.08.2005 are incorrect or that some inadvertent mistake had occurred therein, which is required to be clarified. 9. The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly dismissed the consumer complaint per impugned order, which does not call any interference and is fit to be confirmed. The appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.