BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI

RP/______ /2023

[REVISION PETITION UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED BY STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT TAMIL NADU IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 09 OF 2023 IN MATTER TITLED AS ICICI
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., V PRABHU KARPPAIYAN
FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 PASSED BY THE LD
DISTRICT COMMISSION, TIRUVARUR AT TAMIL NADU IN COMPLAINT
CASE NUMBER 29 OF 2021 TITLED AS PRABHU KARPPAIYAN VS. ICICI
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD., MUMBAI.]

In the matter of:-

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

S. No. Revision Petition No._________ OF 2023

1 Name & address of the Petitioner ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.
with Telephone Number(s) and e-
mail. Ltd.
Regd. Office- Ground Floor, Unit
No., 1 AS2A Raheja Tipco Plaza,
Ranisati Marg, Malad (East),
Mumbai-400097

2 Details of the Case filed before the

State Commission.
Date of the Order: Order dated: 01.02.2023
 
Case No. :
F.A. No. 09 of 2023 in matter
Name of the State Commission: 
titled as ICICI Prudential Life
Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs, Prabhu
Karppaiyan
State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission, Tamil
Nadu.
3 Details of the Case filed before the Order dated 30.08.2022
District Commission.
Date of the Order: Complaint Case No. 29 of 2021
in matter titled Prabhu
 Case No. :
Karppaiyan Vs ICICI Prudential
Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,
District Consumer Dispute
Name of the District Commission: 
Redressal Commission,
Tiruvarur.
4 Whether the impugned order is a Final Order
final order or interim order?
 5 The date on which the free copy 03.04.2023
was received from the State
Commission. 
6 Date on which a copy of the 03.04.2023
impugned order was received for
the first time, from any source. 
7 The source and mode of receiving Registry of Tamil Nadu, State
copy of impugned order for the
first time, from any source.  Commission
8 Delay if any, computing the period No
of limitation, from the date a copy
of the impugned order was first
received from any source. 
9 In case of delay, whether an NA
application for condonation of delay
in filing the Revision Petition is
filed? 
10 Nature of the consumer disputes INSURANCE SERVICES
involved. (To indicate the category)
11 Details of the connected First Not applicable
Appeal(s) or Revision Petition (s) if
any. 
12 Details of any pending Not applicable
petition/First Appeal, involving
identical question of law, if any. 
13 If the consumer dispute relates to Not applicable
a housing, or land development
project, details of the pending First
First Appeal/Revision, if any, in
respect of the same project.
14 Whether attested true copies of the Yes
impugned order, order of the
District Commission, pleadings and
evidence (oral, affidavits as well as
documentary) filed before the
District Commission are filed?
15 Whether English translations of all NA
the documents in vernacular, are
filed?  
16 Telephone no. (Landline as well as Not available
mobile), and email address of the
Respondent (s), if available. 

Verification:
 I, the Petitioner above mentioned, do hereby verify that information provided
herein above is true and complete in all respects, and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

Signature of the Petitioner/

Authorized Representative

_______________________________
 
Advocate for the Petitioner
_______________________
(Praveen Mahajan, Advocate)
Bungalow no. 8, Jangpura B
Main Mathura Road, Dist,
Delhi 110014, India
Mobile 09810620827
Email: advocatemahajan27@gmail.com
Place: Delhi
Date:
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
RP/______ /2023
[REVISION PETITION UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED BY STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT TAMIL NADU IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 09 OF 2023 IN MATTER TITLED AS ICICI
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., V PRABHU KARPPAIYAN
FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 PASSED BY THE LD
DISTRICT COMMISSION, TIRUVARUR AT TAMIL NADU IN COMPLAINT
CASE NUMBER 29 OF 2021 TITLED AS PRABHU KARPPAIYAN VS. ICICI
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD., MUMBAI.]

In the matter of:-

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus

Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

CERTIFICATE

 Certified that I have filed certified / attested true copies of:

.(i).   the orders passed by the Fora below;

.(ii).  all pleadings in the complaint and the evidence filed by both the

parties, oral and documentary.

Signature of the Petitioner

Date

Place
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
RP/______ /2023
[REVISION PETITION UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED BY STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT TAMIL NADU IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 09 OF 2023 IN MATTER TITLED AS ICICI
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., V PRABHU KARPPAIYAN
FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 PASSED BY THE LD
DISTRICT COMMISSION, TIRUVARUR AT TAMIL NADU IN COMPLAINT
CASE NUMBER 29 OF 2021 TITLED AS PRABHU KARPPAIYAN VS. ICICI
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD., MUMBAI.]

In the matter of:-

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus

Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

Affidavit

I, ____________ S/D/O ________________________ aged ___________

years presently working as _________ at Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
having its registered office at__________________ do hereby solemnly affirm
and declare as under: -

1. That I have filed this revision petition against the order dated
01.02.2023 passed by the State Commission.

2. That I have filed copy of the impugned order as well as the copies of all
the pleadings, affidavits and documents, which the parties had filed
before the State Commission. Rejoinder has not been filed by the
complainant.

3. That no oral evidence was led by any party before the State
Commission.

DEPONENT

Verification

I the deponent abovementioned do hereby verify that the contents of my

affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, nothing contained therein is
false and nothing has been concealed therein.

DEPONENT
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
RP/______ /2023
[REVISION PETITION UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED BY STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT TAMIL NADU IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 09
OF 2023 IN MATTER TITLED AS ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
V PRABHU KARPPAIYAN FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 PASSED
BY THE LD DISTRICT COMMISSION, TIRUVARUR AT TAMIL NADU IN
CONSUMER CASE NUMBER 29 OF 2021 TITLED AS PRABHU KARPPAIYAN VS.
ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD., MUMBAI.]

In the matter of:-

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

INDEX

S. NO. PARTICULARS PG NO
1 List of Dates
2 Memo of parties
3 Revision Petition against the order dated
01.02.2023 passed by State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu in
First Appeal No. 09 of 2023 in matter titled as
Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v Kuruva
Ramudu
4 IA No _____ of 2023
Application for stay of order dated 01.02.2023
passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission at Tamil Nadu in First Appeal No.
09 of 2023 in matter titled as Bharti Axa Life
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Kuruva Ramudu with
notarized affidavit
5 Certified true copy of impugned order dated
01.02.2023 passed by State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission at Tamil Nadu
in First Appeal No. 09 of 2023
6 “Annexure-1”
Copy of order dated 30.08.2022 passed by
District Commission, Tiruvarur in CC No 119
of 2021
7 “Annexure-2”
 Copy of complaint filed by
Complainant/Respondent with annexures
before the District Commission
8 “Annexure-3”
Copy of affidavit of evidence filed by
Respondent /Complainant before the Ld
District Commission, Tiruvarur
9 “Annexure-4”
Copy of the written arguments filed by the
Respondent at Ld. DCDRC.
10 “Annexure-5”
The copy of memo of First Appeal filed before
the Ld. State Commission along with
annexures
13 Vakalatnama with authority letter

Advocate for the Petitioner

_______________________
(Praveen Mahajan, Advocate)
Place: Delhi
Date:
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
RP/______ /2023
[REVISION PETITION UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED BY STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT TAMIL NADU IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 09
OF 2023 IN MATTER TITLED AS ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
V PRABHU KARPPAIYAN FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 PASSED
BY THE LD DISTRICT COMMISSION, TIRUVARUR AT TAMIL NADU IN
COMPLAINT CASE NUMBER 29 OF 2021 TITLED AS PRABHU KARPPAIYAN VS.
ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD., MUMBAI.]

In the matter of:-

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

LIST OF DATES

Dec’ 2018 That the Petitioner was in receipt of filled proposal

forms bearing number 1001730 and E2319556 by
the Deceased Life Assured (“DLA”) for Life Shining
Stars plan of the Company. That the DLA in the
proposal form had disclosed himself to be 55 years
old. That DLA had signed following declarations in
the proposal form and the Customer Declaration
Form (hereinafter CDF).

14.12.2018 Thus relying upon said declarations as well as the

details provided in the said application/ proposal
form, the appellant issued subject policy no. 501-
8323369

May’ 2020 That the Petitioner was in receipt of filled proposal

forms bearing number 1001730 by DLA for Super
Endowment plan of the Company. That the DLA in
the proposal form had again disclosed himself to be
55 years old. That DLA had signed following
declarations in the proposal form and the Customer
Declaration Form.

07.05.2020 Thus relying upon said declarations as well as the

details provided in the said application/ proposal
 form, the appellant issued subject policy no. 502-
1815401

20.06.2021 That Insurance Company received death claim

intimation form dated 04.02.2021 informing that Life
Assured under subject policy expired on 20.06.2021
due to Chest Pain, Heart Stroke.

28.02.2021 That death of DLA occurred within 2 years and 6

months with respect to policy bearing no. 501-
8323369 and 1 year and 1 month with respect to
policy bearing no. 502-1815401 from the issuance of
subject policies, hence claim of applicant was
squarely covered under S. 45 of the Insurance Act,
thus after careful evaluation of records obtained by
Insurance Company through investigation in present
case during claim processing, it was revealed that
subject policy was obtained by playing fraud through
active concealment of material facts from the
Petitioner and discrepancies were highlighted to the
Company that the DLA misrepresented his age in the
proposal form. That the policy was declared null and
void and the claim was rejected which was
communicated by the Respondent on 28.02.2021
through letter.

29.07.2021 That subsequently on 29.07.2021, respondent filed

consumer complaint bearing no. 119 of 2019 before
Ld. District Commission against Petitioner
challenging rejection of her claim. However notice for
appearance was never received by the Petitioner and
only final order was dispatched by the registry on
19.05.2022 and received by Petitioners on
10.06.2020. The Petitioner were shocked to see the
order which was passed in favor of the complainant
in the absence of Petitioner side as no written
version or supporting documents could be filed in
support of genuine repudiation of the claim.

30.08.2022 Ld. District Commission has passed impugned order

by allowing the complaint of complainant and
thereby directing Petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs.
11,41,222/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Forty One
 thousand Two hundred and Twenty two) under the
above policies along with interest at 9% per annum
from the date of complaint i.e., on 14.03.2019 to till
the date of realization and further direct to pay Rs.
20,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards mental
agony and Rs. 3,000/- as a costs of the case.
01.02.2023 That being aggrieved by said order of Ld. District
Commission the Petitioner herein filed First Appeal
since the Ld. District Commission vide order dated
30.08.2022 has taken a wrong view with respect to
non-appearance of petitioner before Ld. District
Commission and non-filling of documents. That the
First Appeal was dismissed by Ld. State Commission
vide order dated 01.02.2023 .

Thus being aggrieved by impugned order of Ld. State

Commission, present revision petition is being filed.
Hence the revision petition.

For and on behalf of the Petitioner

_______________________
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI

RP/______ /2023
[REVISION PETITION UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED BY STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT TAMIL NADU IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 09
OF 2023 IN MATTER TITLED AS ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
V PRABHU KARPPAIYAN FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 PASSED
BY THE LD DISTRICT COMMISSION, TIRUVARUR AT TAMIL NADU IN
COMPLAINT CASE NUMBER 29 OF 2021 TITLED AS PRABHU KARPPAIYAN VS.
ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD., MUMBAI.]

In the matter of:-

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

MEMO OF PARTIES

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co., Mumbai

Regd. Office- Ground Floor, Unit No., 1

AS2A Raheja Tipco Plaza, Ranisati Marg,

Malad (East), Mumbai-400097 …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan
House No.- 50, Kuchipalayam Street,
Kudavasi, Tiruvarur,
Tamil Nadu- 612 601 …..Respondent

For and on behalf of the Petitioner

_______________________

Place: Delhi
Date:
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
RP/______ /2023
[REVISION PETITION UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED BY STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT TAMIL NADU IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 09
OF 2023 IN MATTER TITLED AS ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
V PRABHU KARPPAIYAN FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 30.08.2022 PASSED
BY THE LD DISTRICT COMMISSION, TIRUVARUR AT TAMIL NADU IN
COMPLAINT CASE NUMBER 29 OF 2021 TITLED AS PRABHU KARPPAIYAN VS.
ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD., MUMBAI.]

In the matter of:-

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

REVISION

To,

The Hon’ble President and Members of the National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission:-

THE REVISION PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED:

1. BRIEF INTRODUCTION: That the instant Revision Petition is preferred by
Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. & 2 Ors. (“Petitioner”) for setting aside the
order dated 01.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”)
passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Tamil Nadu
(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. State Commission”) in First Appeal No.
09 of 2023 in matter titled as Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v Kuruva
Ramudu Order dated 30.08.2022 passed by District Commission, Tiruvarur
in CC No 119 of 2021 in matter titled as Kuruva Ramudu v Bharti Axa Life
Insurance Co. Ltd..

2. ARRAY OF PARTIES : That Petitioner was Respondent before Ld. District

Commission and appellant before Ld. State Commission. That Respondent
herein was respondent before the Ld. State Commission and complainant
before the District Commission.

3. DETAILS OF ANNEXURES TO THE PETITION : The Certified true copy

of Order of Ld. State Commission dated 01.02.2023 impugned in present
Revision Petition. The copy of Order dated 30.08.2022 passed by District
Commission is annexed as “Annexure 1”. The copy of complaint filed by
Respondent herein before the District Commission is annexed as
 Annexure-2. The copy of affidavit of evidence filed by
complainant/Respondent before District Commission is annexed as
Annexure-3. Copy of the written arguments filed by the Respondent at
Ld. DCDRC is annexed as Annexure-4. The copy of memo of First Appeal
filed before the Ld. State Commission along with annexures is annexed as
Annexure-5.

4. That M/s Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. is a company registered under the
provisions of Section 3 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and relevant provisions
of The Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in business of providing life
insurance cover to its customers across the length and breadth of country.
That Petitioner are represented by duly authorized officer from registered
office of insurance company who is having requisite authority and
permission to file and prosecute the revision petition for and on behalf of
Petitioner.

5. That before adverting to grounds of revision petition, Petitioner craves

leave of this Hon’ble Commission to narrate the facts in brief for proper
appreciation of the case by this Hon’ble Commission, as the
Respondent/complainant version before Ld. Commission was incorrect,
false, misleading, misconceived and inconsistent hence stating of correct
fact before Ld Commission is necessary for true appreciation of fact
leading to filing of present First Appeal.

6. FACTS IN BRIEF: -
i. That Petitioner Company is a life insurance company, registered
under the provisions of Section 3 of The Insurance Act, 1938 and
the relevant provisions of The Companies Act, 1956 and is
engaged in business of providing life insurance cover to its
customers across the length and breadth of the country. That the
Petitioner Company is represented by duly authorized person
from the head office of the company who is having authority to
sign and file the present First Appeal.

ii. That the Petitioner was in receipt of filled online proposal forms
bearing number E2319556 & 1001730 in the year 2018 & 2020
respectively by the Deceased Life Assured (“DLA”). The
application forms were submitted along with PAN Card as Age
Proof along with both the proposal forms wherein Date of Birth of
DLA was mentioned to be 20.09.1964 i.e. age of 54 years in the
year 2018 and 56 years in the year 2020.
iii. That DLA had signed declarations in the proposal form and the
Customer Declaration Form (hereinafter CDF) which clearly states
that DLA had provided all true and accurate information and that
he had not withheld any material information from the Petitioner.
He had further declared that the policy has not been obtained by
any act of fraud or misrepresentation or non-disclosure. It is also
apposite to note here that DLA was a graduate hence an educated
person to read and understand the proposal form as well as
Customer Declaration Form.

iv. Thus relying upon said declarations as well as the details provided
in the said application/ proposal form, the appellant issued
subject policies bearing number as per following details:
Application E2319556 1001730
Number
Policy Number 501-8323369 502-1815401
Policy Plan Bharti Axa Life Super
Shining Stars Endowment
Life Assured Kuruva Kuruva
Nagabhushanam Nagabhushana
m
Sum Assured Rs. 3,09,621/- Rs. 8,31,601/-
Premium Rs. 25811.05/- Rs. 21,318/-
Premium Annual Half-yearly
Frequency
Risk 14.12.2018 07.05.2020
Commencement
Date
Policy Issue
Date

v. That in accordance to Regulation 10 (1) & 8 (1) of the Insurance

Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of
Policyholder’s Interests) Regulations, 2017, the insurance
company had sent the Policy Documents to the communication
address mentioned in the proposal forms, stating the policy terms
& conditions and a forwarding letter stating the Free look period
provision along with a copy of proposal form under the policy.
That the policy documents were dispatched which were duly
delivered. That life assured had ample opportunity to go through
and understand the terms and conditions of the subject policy.
The terms and condition clearly states the implication of not
approaching for cancellation during the free look period.
 vi. That it is pertinent to note that the life assured retained the policy
documents and did not approach the insurance company with any
discrepancies regarding the policy terms and conditions, neither
did he approach the insurance Company for cancellation of the
policy during the Free Look Period, thereby implying that he had
agreed to all the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the
subject policy continued with implied acceptance by life assured
himself.

vii. That Insurance Company received death claim intimation form

dated 04.02.2021 informing that Life Assured under subject policy
expired on 20.06.2021 due to Chest Pain, Heart Stroke.

viii. That death of DLA occurred within 2 years and 6 months with
respect to policy bearing no. 501-8323369 and 1 year and 1
month with respect to policy bearing no. 502-1815401 from the
issuance of subject policies, hence claim of applicant was squarely
covered under the definition of early claim (which occurred within
3 years from date of issuance) wherein investigation was
conducted.

ix. That as per S. 45 of the Insurance Act, Insurance Company has

the prerogative to call the policy in question within 3 years from
date of issuance of subject policy. Thus Petitioner had initiated an
investigation. That after careful evaluation of records obtained by
Insurance Company through investigation in present case during
claim processing, it was revealed that subject policy was obtained
by playing fraud through active concealment of material facts
from the Petitioner and discrepancies were highlighted to the
Company that the DLA misrepresented his age in the proposal
form.

x. That the following documents were procured by the insurance

company during the investigation with respect to the age
misrepresentation by the DLA in the proposal form:
 S. No. Document Observation
1. Online Voter ID Voter ID bearing no.
card details BQH2853703.
Age of the DLA is 72 years
2. Household Card Ration card dated 04.08.2006.
or Ration Card of The age of DLA’s first son
DLA’s First Son Mugenna on 04.08.2006 was 35
years making it evident that at the
time of issuance of subject policies
the son of DLA was 47 years old in
2018 whereas DLA declared
himself to be 54 years which
means age gap of 7 years between
father and son which is
scientifically impossible.
3. Old age Pension That the old pension of the DLA
were deleted on 25.05.2020 which
was sanctioned on 25.03.2018
which means that DLA was atleast
60 years in 2018 when the old age
pension was sanctioned.
4. PAN Card of K DOB of K Ramudu 10.06.1977 i.e.
Ramudu 41 years in 2018 whereas DLA
(received along declared himself to be 54 years
with claim form) which means age gap of 13 years
between father and son which is
scientifically impossible.

xi. That in view of the above mentioned revelations accentuated

during investigation and the fraud cases received by Insurance
Company, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the
Petitioner. That the policy was declared null and void and the
claim was rejected which was communicated by the Respondent
on 28.02.2021 through letter.

xii. That subsequently on 29.07.2021, respondent filed consumer

complaint bearing no. 119 of 2019 before Ld. District Commission
against Petitioner challenging rejection of her claim. However
notice for appearance was never received by the Petitioner and
only final order was dispatched by the registry on 19.05.2022 and
received by Petitioners on 10.06.2020. The Petitioner were
shocked to see the order which was passed in favor of the
complainant in the absence of Petitioner side as no written
 version or supporting documents could be filed in support of
genuine repudiation of the claim.

xiii. However Ld. District Commission has passed impugned order by

allowing the complaint of complainant and thereby directing
Petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs. 11,41,222/- (Rupees Eleven
Lakh Forty One thousand Two hundred and Twenty two) under
the above policies along with interest at 9% per annum from the
date of complaint i.e., on 14.03.2019 to till the date of realization
and further direct to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees five thousand)
towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- as a costs of the case.

xiv. That being aggrieved by said order of Ld. District Commission the
Petitioner herein filed First Appeal since the Ld. District
Commission vide order dated 30.08.2022 has taken a wrong view
with respect to non-appearance of petitioner before Ld. District
Commission and non-filling of documents. That the First Appeal
was dismissed by Ld. State Commission vide order dated
01.02.2023 .

xv. That said First Appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. SCDRC vide
impugned order merely on the ground that of non-appearance of
petitioner before Ld. District Commission and non-filling of
documents before Ld. State Commission while the same were
duly filed. Thus being aggrieved by impugned order of Ld. State
Commission, present revision petition is being filed on following
grounds:

7. GROUNDS
A. BECAUSE it is apposite to be noted that captioned
complaint was filed on 29.07.2021 during which the
COVID situation was extremely bad in the country. That
officers of the Petitioner Company were also working from
home and the office premises were closed as per the
guidelines of govt. That the notice for captioned matter
was never delivered at the office of Petitioner in Mumbai.
That it was through final order only that Petitioner came
to know about the captioned case filed by respondent.
Hence Ld. District Commission could not appreciate the
true facts of the case at the time of disposal of the
complaint which has not been considered by Ld. State
Commission.
B. BECAUSE on account of COVID 19 pandemic the working
of the courts across the country is badly affected and as
much as Hon’ble Supreme Court passed repeated order
Including the Order Dated 08.03.2021 AND 27.04.2021
for the suspension / exclusion / extension of the period of
limitation passed in Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No 3 of 2020,
hence ex parte order against Petitioner is liable to be set
aside in the interest of justice. That thereafter considering
the improvement in the COVID 19 pandemic, Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed order dated 23.09.2021 wherein it
has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that “In
cases where the limitation would have expired during the
period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021,
notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation
remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90
days from 03.10.2021.” That even order dated
23.09.2021 for extension of limitation is in force till
03.01.2022 i.e., 90 days from 03.10.2021. However, on
account of third covid wave, Hon’ble Apex Court again
passed order dated 10.01.2022 thereby directing to
exclude period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 from
calculating period of limitation. Hence Petitioner herein is
duly covered under said order of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
therefore impugned order is liable to be set aside.

C. BECAUSE Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again

observed that, “When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each other, cause of
substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other
side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being
done because of a non-deliberate delay. Hence order
passed by Ld. District Commission was liable to be set
aside as non-appearance and non-filing of the written
statement of Petitioner before Ld. District Commission
was completely unintentional and the same was due to
non-receipt of notice by Petitioner Company. However Ld.
State Commission has not considered the pleadings of
petitioner and thus the observation in impugned order
stating that “Despite service of notice, the opposite party
did not choose to appear before the District Commission
and oppose the claim of the complainant by filing
version.” Is erroneous consequently impugned order is
liable to be set aside
D. BECAUSE Ld. State Commission has categorically not
appreciated that Petitioner is a company for which the
official premises were closed since Mar’2020 as per the
Covid-19 guidelines of the government and that the
offices of Petitioner Company has still not opened
completely. It is submitted that on account of closure of
offices during the Covid-19 period, the notice issued by
Ld. District Commission was received belatedly and even
thereafter due to restricted functioning of the offices,
documents could not be sent and filed before Ld. District
Commission.

E. BECAUSE, the aforesaid circumstances clearly go on to

show that there is no deliberate fault on the part of the
Petitioner to prosecute the complaint before Ld. State
Commission. It is worthwhile to note that the principal of
natural justice (Audi Alterem Partem) i.e., no one be
condemned unheard but the Ld. State Commission
proceeded to dismiss, despite of the fact that non-
appearance and non-filling of written version is bona fide
and on account of rational reason which has caused
prejudice to the Petitioner in the aforesaid matter.

F. BECAUSE it is submitted that on account of nationwide

lockdown imposed across the country since Mar’2020,
employees of the Petitioner has been working from home
with restricted infrastructure since then till date. That the
head office of the Petitioner is in Mumbai which was a
hotspot of COVID-19 pandemic, thus office of Petitioner
has not fully opened yet. That the notice for captioned
matter was never delivered at the office of Petitioner in
Mumbai. That it was through final order only that
Petitioner came to know about the captioned case filed by
respondent. Hence Ld. District Commission could not
appreciate the true facts of the case. That there is no
document on record to prove that Petitioner was
sufficiently served or if there was any intentional
avoidance to attend the proceedings before Ld. District
Commission. Thus impugned order passed by Ld. State
Commission is liable to be set aside.
G. BECAUSE the observation of Ld. State Commission stating
that “The opposite party did not choose to produce single
scrap of paper to dislodge the complaint. Even during the
First Appeal also, the opposite party did not produce
single scrap of paper to substantiate its stand.” That Ld.
State Commission has failed to appreciate that insurance
company has duly put on record “The copy of
Investigation report along with affidavit of investigator is
annexed as Annexure-F (Colly). The copy of the
documents as to Voter ID details of DLA, Ration Card
dated 04.08.2008 of the DLA’s First Son and Old Age
Pension details of the DLA are hereto annexed as
Annexure-G.” along with the First Appeal which duly
substantiate the stand taken by insurance company in
rejecting the claim of complainant. Thus there is no
dereliction on the part of insurance company and
impugned order is liable to be set aside.

H. BECAUSE, it is settled law that misrepresentation of age is

material suppression, as held by Hon’ble National
Commission in its judgment in III (2002) CPJ 10 (NC) Life
Insurance Corporation Of India V/S Smt. Minu Kalita.
Hence observation of Ld. State Commission stating that
“Basing on the material on record, the irresislate
conclusion that can be drawn is that the opposite party
failed to establish that the life assured intentionally and
willfulty suppressed his correct age thereby induced the
opposite party to issue the policies in question. The
opposite party repudiated the craim of the comprainant
on untenable grounds.” Is erroneous on the face of it
hence impugned order is liable to be set aside.

I. BECAUSE Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically settled

in the case of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod [Civil First Appeal No.
4261 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14312 of 2015)]
That Hon’ble apex court has duly observed in said case
that the expression ‘material’ in context of insurance
policy can be defined as any contingency or event that
may have an impact upon the risk appetite or willingness
of the insurer to provide insurance cover. It was rightly
appreciated by Hon’ble apex court that it is not for the life
assured to decide whether any fact sought in material or
 not as it follows the test of materiality that prudent
insurer would have considered that any particular
circumstance was a material fact. Further the Hon’ble
Apex Court also relied upon its decision on Satwant Kaur
Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2009) 8
SCC 316, wherein the definition of material was duly
explained.

J. BECAUSE Hon’ble Supreme Court has duly observed in the

case of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs.
Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod [Civil First Appeal No. 4261
of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14312 of 2015)] that
contracts of insurance are governed by the principle of
utmost good faith which requires that all the party to the
contract to be fair and honest in the dealing. The object of
the proposal form is to gather information about the life to
be assured which is material to the insurer to know in
order to assess the risk and decide whether to accept the
proposal or not and its terms and conditions if accepted.
Thus proposal form is a crucial part of exercising utmost
good faith hence the same should be filled with due care.
It is a contractual obligation upon the insured to ensure
that all true facts are communicated to the insurer and in
case of any suppression, untruth or inaccuracy in the
statement in the proposal form, it would be a breach of
the duty of good faith and will render the policy voidable
by the insurer.

K. BECAUSE further Hon’ble Apex Court also upheld the

judgment of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in
VK Srinivasa Setty v. Messers Premier Life and General
Insurance Co. Ltd. MANU/KA/0032/1958 : AIR 1958 Mys
53 in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs.
Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod [Civil First Appeal No. 4261
of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14312 of 2015)]
wherein it has been held that a person who affixes his
signature to a proposal which contains a statement which
is not true, cannot ordinarily escape from the
consequence arising there from by pleading that he chose
to sign the proposal containing such statement without
either reading or understanding it. That is because, in
filling up the proposal form, the agent normally, ceases to
act as agent of the insurer but becomes the agent of the
 insured and no agent can be assumed to have authority
from the insurer to write the answers in the proposal
form. If an agent nevertheless does that, he becomes
merely the amanuensis of the insured, and his knowledge
of the untruth or inaccuracy of any statement contained in
the form of proposal does not become the knowledge of
the insurer. Further, apart from any question of imputed
knowledge, the insured by signing that proposal adopts
those answers and makes them his own and that would
clearly be so, whether the insured signed the proposal
without reading or understanding it, it being irrelevant to
consider how the inaccuracy arose if he has contracted, as
the Plaintiff has done in this case that his written answers
shall be accurate.

L. BECAUSE, Ld. State Commission totally ignored law

settled that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satwant Kaur
Sandhu V New India Assurance Company Ltd reported in
MANU/SC/1164/2009 in great length dealt with the
meaning and interpretation of word “material” as per
proposal form and law of insurance life assured is under
obligation to disclose every material fact to insurance
company which affects underwriting decision of company
to arrive out at decision to issue policy. In view of same
term “material” is also specifically defined under the
Regulation 2(1)(d) of the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders
Interests) Regulations, 2002.

M. BECAUSE, as per law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

P.C Chacko & Anr V Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation
Of India &Ors Reported In III 2008 CPJ 78 (SC) has
specifically held If a person makes wrong statement with
knowledge of consequence therefore, he would ordinarily
be esstopped from pleading that even if such a fact had
been disclosed, it would not have made any material
change. In a case of material suppression, it was not
necessary for insurer to establish that suppression was
fraudulently made by the policy holder or that he must
have been aware at the time of making the statement
that same was false or that fact was suppressed which
was material to disclose. A deliberate wrong answer which
has great bearing on the contract of insurance, if
 discovered may lead to the policy being vitiated in law,
hence in present case there was no question of deficiency
in services rendered by the Petitioner.

N. BECAUSE, as per proposal form and as well as per law of

insurance the life assured was always under legal and as
well as contractual obligation to disclose every material
fact to the insurance company which affects underwriting
decision of the company to arrive out at the decision to
issue policies.

O. BECAUSE observation of Ld. District Commission which

has been upheld by Ld. State Commission stating that the
order has been passed arbitrarily and merely because
policy was issued, Petitioner was liable to pay the claim
amount is erroneous. That observations of Ld. District
Commission that proposal form was filed, proper
investigation done and after satisfaction of agent policy
was issued as well as the observation of Ld. District
Commission that claim has been repudiated without any
lawful cause are materially irregular. That in absence of
Petitioner and its representation, Ld. District Commission
could not appreciate documentary proof in support of
repudiation. Further it is also apposite to mention here
that agent works independently and agent has no
authority to fill the proposal form or conduct any
investigation.

P. BECAUSE, the Ld. District Commission as well as Ld. State

Commission apart from granting the interest 9% per
annum from date of filling of case till date of order also
provided the compensation of Rs 20,000/- towards
deficiency in service which is not permissible since grant
of the compensation and interest tantamount to grant of
double compensation since under the consumer protection
act the interest is indeed compensation. That as per
Supreme Court decision in Bangalore Development
Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, in civil First Appeal No.
5462/2002 held that double benefit by awarding both
interest as well as lump-sum compensation in our opinion
is not justified in law. Same view was taken by Hon’ble
National Commission, in case Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. &Anr.
v. P.R. Krishnan & Anr., reported as
 I(1995)CPJ43(NC)1986-96 Consumer 3234 (NS) hence
the impugned order is liable to be dismissed on this
ground as well.

Q. BECAUSE, Ld. State Commission has failed to appreciate

that Insurance Policy is a legal contract between
policyholder and Insurance Company and parties to said
contract are bound by its terms and conditions. That
terms of subject policy are in nature of a contract and
their interpretation has to be made in accordance with
strict construction of subject contract. Thus, words in an
insurance contract must be given paramount importance
and interpreted as expressed without any addition,
deletion or substitution. The Ld. State Commission
despite of specific pleading of said law has ignored it while
passing impugned order.

R. BECAUSE, it is stated while passing impugned order, Ld.

State Commission has totally failed to appreciate that DLA
has suppressed material facts and that the Petitioner
could not bring the true and accurate facts of the case
before Ld. District Commission on account of no
knowledge of the said matter to the legal team of
Petitioner. That Ld. State Commission ought to have taken
into consideration provisions of Regulation 2 (1) (d) of
IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations,
2002, at the time of issuing the policy to the Life Assured.
That Regulation 2 (1) (d) of the IRDA (Protection of
Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, reads as
herein under:
“Proposal Form” means a form to be filled in by the
proposer for insurance, for furnishing all material
information required by the insurer in respect of a
risk, in order to enable the insurer to decide
whether to accept or decline, to undertake the risk,
and in the event of acceptance of risk, to determine
the rates, terms and conditions of a cover to be
granted.
Explanation: “Material” for the purpose of these
regulations shall mean and include all important,
essential and relevant information in the context of
underwriting the risk to be covered by the insurer.
 Further, as per provisions of Regulation 11 (1) and
Regulation 11 (3) of IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’
Interests) Regulations, 2002, contents of which have been
reproduced herein below, Proposer are under a bounden
obligation, to disclose all material information to the
insurer, at time of proposal.
“11 (1) The requirements of disclosure of “material
information” regarding a proposal or policy apply,
under these regulations, both to the insurer and the
insured.
11 (3) The policyholder shall furnish all information
that is sought from him by the insurer and also any
other information which the insurer considers as
having a bearing on the risk to enable the latter to
assess properly the risk sought to be covered by a
policy.”

S. BECAUSE, in a contract of Insurance like in present case,

any fact which would influence the mind of a prudent
insurer in deciding whether to accept or not to accept the
risk is a “material fact”. The Proposer is obliged to disclose
it particularly while answering questions in proposal form,
thus any inaccurate answer will entitle the insurer to
repudiate his liability because there is clear presumption
that any information sought for in the proposal form is
material for the purpose of entering into a Contract of
Insurance thus on the basis of said principle and law of
insurance the claim under policy is repudiated thus there
is no deficiency in services rendered by the Petitioner in
present case. The said law on material disclosure and as
well on interpretation of the term “material fact” is already
discussed in great length by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
however Ld State Commission has not taken into
consideration the law settled on the subject.

T. BECAUSE, complaint was filed by Respondent herein, with

sole intent to wriggle out contractual obligation to avoid
duly entered contract of insurance on false grounds. It is
further stated if such type of consumer complaints is
entertained and be allowed it will set up wrong precedent
in public at large, since consumer courts will become
refuge to wriggle out contractual obligation by denying
obvious and admitted documents. It is stated that claim
 was repudiated Under Sec 45 of the Insurance Act for
concealment / misrepresentation of material fact as per
information provided in proposal form towards age as per
IRDA Rules and Regulations.

U. BECAUSE, relief granted to Respondent are against

express provisions of subject policy and as well in
violation of the Insurance Act 1938 as stated hereinabove,
whereas it is settled law that forum are not permitted to
go beyond terms of contract of subject policy.

V. BECAUSE, Ld. Commission has not considered fact that

going against terms and conditions of Contract of
Insurance is completely contrary to established law thus
blatantly illegal. That subject policy is governed by terms
& conditions contained therein and same cannot be
denied, on contrary, it is stated that impugned order by
allowing sum assured has completely made a patently
illegal order.

W. BECAUSE, Ld. Commission has not considered whilst

passing impugned order that DLA had 15 days of free-look
wherein he could have peacefully gone through policy
paper and cancelled the same if he felt there were any
discrepancies in his details or any other details mentioned
in proposal from.

X. BECAUSE, Ld. Commission has ignored the fact that

insurance industry is subject to regulation of IRDAI, and
all product of appellant company are pre-approved by
IRDAI, and none of the product could be launched without
approval of IRDAI, further every product sold under
insurance is always subject to free look period hence in
any eventuality it could not be said that insurance product
was imposed upon Respondent, hence observation and
conclusion of Ld. Commission are uncalled for.

Y. BECAUSE, in present case it not otherwise necessary for

Petitioner to establish that suppression was fraudulently
made by policy holder or that he must have been aware at
time of making statement that same was false or that fact
was suppressed which was material to disclose. In present
case there is wrong answer to question put up in proposal
 form which has a great bearing on contract of insurance
and said question during investigation were found to be
untrue which had led to policy being vitiated in law hence
repudiation is legal and supported by specific provisions
contained under statute.

Z. BECAUSE, Ld. Commission failed to appreciate facts and

circumstances of case and passed order arbitrarily which
is, illegal and materially irregular, being against express
provisions of contract between parties as contained in
subject policy and findings are beyond terms of contract
of insurance and Ld. Commission totally failed to
appreciate fact that entire consumer complaint was filed
to wriggle out contractual obligation and ultimately by
gross misrepresentation of the fact.

AA. BECAUSE, for matter to fall under jurisdiction of

Consumer Protection Act there must be some “Deficiency
in service” on the part of other Party. It is submitted that
term “Deficiency in service” as defined under Section 2
(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, envisages
any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy, in
the quality, nature and manner of performance, which is
required to be maintained in pursuance of a contract. In
the present matter, the claim of the Respondent have
been repudiated on the grounds of concealment of
material facts and misstatement at the time of proposing
for the life insurance policies in question. Further, the
Respondent was informed of such claim repudiation,
together with reasons for the same.

BB. BECAUSE, the order of Ld. District Commission is illegal,

unreasonable, harsh and burdensome in the facts and
circumstances of the case and the impugned order of the
Ld. Commission is even otherwise unsustainable as may
be submitted at the time of the hearing of the present
petition.

CC. BECAUSE, the Petitioner humbly prays to rely on such

other grounds as may be available with due permission of
the Ld. Court.
8. That the Petitioner have not filed any other petition to challenge the
impugned order in the present petition.

9. That Petitioner takes leave of this Hon’ble National Commission to place

other ground of the case at the time of arguments and amend present
petition and file documents as and when required with due leave of the
Hon’ble National Commission.

10. That the first copy of impugned order dated 01.02.2023 was received by
Petitioner from registry on 24.05.2023 as evident from the last page of
impugned order for which last date of filing present revision petition is
24.08.2023. Hence present revision petition is filed within the period of
limitation.

11. That the calculation of decretal amount is as per the Ld. District Commission
order dated 30.08.2022 wherein Ld. Commission directed the Petitioner to
pay Rs. 11,41,222/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Forty One thousand Two hundred
and Twenty two) under the above policies along with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of complaint i.e., on 14.03.2019 to till the date of
realization ( till 20.06.2023 i.e. 1560 days ) and further direct to pay Rs.
20,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- as
a costs of the case is equal to Rs. 11,41,222/- + Rs. 4,38,979.64 + Rs.
20,000 + Rs. 3,000 i.e. Rs. 16,03,201.64. >>>>>>>PLEASE
CHECK<<<<<<

12. That Petitioner herein had deposited an amount of Rs. ______________

before Ld. SCDRC towards stay compliance as well as an amount of Rs.
6,49,834 was deposited towards statutory amount at the time of filling First
Appeal before Ld. SCDRC thus a total of Rs. _____________ has been
deposited by Petitioner before Ld. SCDRC out of total decretal amount of Rs.
16,03,201.64.

13. That pending hearing and disposal of this revision petition. This Hon’ble
commission be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order of the
Ld. State Commission.

PRAYER
It is therefore humbly prayed that the present revision may please
be allowed and the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by
Ld. State Consumer Dispute Commission Tamil Nadu at Tamil
Nadu, passed in FA No. 09 of 2023 in matter titled as Bharti Axa
Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kuruva Ramudu may please be set aside
and consequently the complaint of the Respondent be dismissed in
 totality. Further any other order, which is just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case, may please be passed in the
favor of the Petitioner.

_____________________________
For and behalf of Petitioner
Place:
Date:
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
RP/______ /2023
In the matter of:-
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of _____________ S/O ______________ aged ________ years

working as _____________with Petitioner having its registered office do
hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. That I am at presently working with Petitioner I state that I am duly

authorized person to file the present revision petition for and on
behalf of the Petitioner. The accompanying petition is drafted by our
counsel under our instructions and I am thoroughly conversant with
the facts and circumstances of the present case on the basis of my
knowledge as derived from the official record of the Petitioner
maintained by it in ordinary course of business and am fully
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That, the contents of Para 1 to ___ of the accompanying petition,
are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and may be read as
an integral part of this affidavit and the contents whereof are true
and correct to my personal knowledge and on the basis of the
record of the Petitioner company.

 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of
Para 1 and 2 of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my personal
knowledge, nothing have been concealed, No part of it is false.

 DEPONENT
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
RP/______ /2023
In the matter of:-

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

APPLICATION FOR STAY

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOR:-

The Petitioner most respectfully submit their stay application as under:-
1) That the accompanying revision petition is filed today by the
Petitioner before the Hon’ble Commission for setting aside the order
dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Ld. State Commission.

2) That, the contents of the accompanying Revision Petition including

the grounds stated therein may please be read as integral part and
parcel of this application and same are not repeated herein for the
sake of brevity and also to avoid prolixity, and the Petitioner craves
the leave to refer and reply on the averments and grounds stated in
accompanying Revision Petition while arguing the present application.

3) That, while passing the order dated 01.02.2023 the Ld. State
Commission failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the
case and relied upon by the Petitioner and has passed an order
against the Petitioner which is otherwise liable to be set aside during
the course of Revision Petition.

4) That the Petitioner respectfully states that disposal of accompanying

Revision Petition will take some time if during the pendency of the
Revision Petition the operation of the order dated 01.02.2023 is not
stayed the entire purpose of filing present Petition will be frustrated.

5) That, the balance of convenience in staying operation of the

impugned order is totally in favour of the Petitioner and the Petitioner
would suffer irreparable loss in case same will not be stayed by the
Hon’ble Commission, since the Respondent is not entitled to any
amount.

6) That the original case was filed by the Respondent with the sole
intent to wriggle out the contractual obligation with the sole intent to
 avoid duly entered contract of insurance on false and flimsy grounds.
It is further stated if such type of consumer complaints are
entertained and be allowed it will set up wrong precedent in public at
large, since the consumer courts will become the refuge to wriggle
out the contractual obligation by denying the obvious and admitted
documents hence operation of impugned order need to be stayed to
serve larger interest of justice.

7) It is submitted that execution case bearing no. __________ is

pending before Ld. District Commission which is next listed on
______________. That in absence of stay order from the Hon’ble
National Commission, Ld. District Commission may pass adverse
orders against the insurance company.

8) That other ground will be submitted at the time of arguments.

PRAYER
It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble National Commission
may please allow the present stay application filed by the Petitioner
and further the operation of impugned order dated 01.02.2023
passed by Ld. State Consumer Dispute Commission, Chennai at Tamil
Nadu passed in FA No. 09 of 2023 in matter titled as Bharti Axa Life
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Kuruva Ramudu may please be stayed till the
decision of accompanying Revision Petition. Any other order, which is
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may
please be passed in the favor of the Petitioner.

_____________________________
 For and behalf of Petitioner

Place:
Date:
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
RP/______ /2023
In the matter of:-
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of _____________ S/O ______________ aged ________ years
working as _____________with Petitioner having its registered office do
hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1) That I am at presently working with Petitioner I state that I am duly

authorized person to file the present revision petition for and on
behalf of the Petitioner. The accompanying application is drafted by
our counsel under our instructions and I am thoroughly conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the present case on the basis of
my knowledge as derived from the official record of the Petitioner
maintained by it in ordinary course of business and am fully
competent to swear this affidavit.
2) That, the contents of Para 1 to ___ of the accompanying application,
are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and may be read as
an integral part of this affidavit and the contents whereof are true
and correct to my personal knowledge and on the basis of the
record of the Petitioner company.

 DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of
Para 1 and 2 of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my personal
knowledge, nothing have been concealed, No part of it is false.

 DEPONENT
Place:
Date :
 VAKALATNAMA
BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
RP/______ /2023
In the matter of:-

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

Known ALL to whom these present shall come that I/We the
________________________________________in accompanying CASE /in
aforesaid proceedings above named do hereby appoint:
(Herein after called the advocate(s)/ to be my/our Advocate in the above-
noted case authorized him:
(Praveen Mahajan, Advocate)
Equi Law Partners, Advocates & Legal Consultants
Duplex No. 200, Aashirwad Apartments,
Plot No. 74, IP Extn., Patparganj, Delhi-92
Mobile 09810620827
Email:advocatemahajan27@gmail.com

To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in this court or in any other
Court in which the same may be tried or heard and also in the appellate Court
Including High Court subject to payment of fees separately for each court by
me/us
To sign, file verify and present pleadings, First Appeals cross-objections or
petitions for execution review, revision, withdrawal, compromise or to her
petitions or affidavits or other documents as may be deemed necessary or
proper for the prosecution of the said case in all its stages.
To file and take back documents to admit and/or deny the documents of
opposite party.
To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any
differences or disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to
the said case.
To appoint and instruct any other legal practitioner, authorizing him to
exercise the power and authority hereby conferred upon the Advocate
whenever he may think it to do so and to sign the Power of Attorney on our
behalf.
And I/we the undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all acts done
by the Advocate or his substitute in the matter as my/our acts, as if done by
me/us to all intents and purposes.
And I/We undertake that I/We or my/our duly authorized agent would appear
in the Court on all hearings and will inform the Advocate for appearance when
the case is called.
And I/we undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate or his
substitute responsible for the result of the said case. The adjournment costs
whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the Advocate, which he shall
receive and retain himself.
And I/we the undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the whole or
part of the fee agreed by me/us to be paid to the advocate remaining unpaid
the shall be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the said case until the
same is paid up. The fee settled is only for the above case and above court.
I/We hereby agree that once the fee is paid I/we will not be entitled for the
refund of the same in any case whatsoever if the case lasts for more than one
years, the advocates shall be entitled for additional fee equivalent to half of
the agreed fee for every addition one years or part thereof.
In WITNESS WHEREOF I/We do hereunto set my/our hand to these presents
the contents of which have understood by me/us on this __________

Advocate(s) Client
Any other order, which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, may please be passed in the favor of the Petitioner.

_____________________________
 For and behalf of Petitioner

Place:
Date:
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
RP/______ /2023
In the matter of:-
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd …..Petitioner

Versus
Prabhu Karppaiyan …..Respondent

AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of _____________ S/O ______________ aged ________ years
working as _____________with Petitioner having its registered office do
hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
1. That I am at presently working with Petitioner I state that I am duly
authorized person to file the present revision petition for and on
behalf of the Petitioner. The accompanying petition is drafted by our
counsel under our instructions and I am thoroughly conversant with
the facts and circumstances of the present case on the basis of my
knowledge as derived from the official record of the Petitioner
maintained by it in ordinary course of business and am fully
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That, the contents of Para 1 to ___ of the accompanying application,
are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and may be read as
an integral part of this affidavit and the contents whereof are true
and correct to my personal knowledge and on the basis of the
record of the Petitioner company.

 DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of
Para 1 and 2 of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my personal
knowledge, nothing have been concealed, No part of it is false.

 DEPONENT
Place:
Date :