Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. vs HARBANS KAUR

MR . Justice R.K. Batta, Presiding Member -The Petitioner has come in revision against concurrent findings of Fora below. The husband of the Complainant/Respondent had taken a policy on 21.11.1997 for Rs. 3 lacs and during the currency of the policy, he died on 26.6.1998. The complainant had filed claim before the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated on the ground of concealment of material information regarding death of the insured at the time of taking the insurance policy. According to the Insurance Company the suppression of material information was relating to the fact that the insured was suffering from Dyspnoea for a period of 2 year and had swelling of both feet for last one year. In support of its contention. Insurance Company had relied upon a Certificate issued by Dr. Prem Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. The District Forum had come to the conclusion that the life assured had not concealed the condition of his health or having suffered from Dyspnoea for 2 years and swelling on both feet for one year.

THE State Commission elaborately discussed the issues raised by the Insurance Company and concurred with the findings of District Forum. According to the State Commission, the concealment had not been proved except for bald statement made on behalf of the Insurance Company and that no affidavit of any Doctor from Rajendra Prasad Hospital, Patiala has been filed before District Forum.

THE policy, in question, was taken on 21.11.1997. At the time of issuing of policy, physical medical examination of the insured was conducted by Doctor of the Insurance Company. The State Commission held that if the insured was suffering from Dyspnoea for 2 years and also swelling on both feet for one year prior to his death, the said fact could have been easily detected by doctor of the Insurance Company, inasmuch as the policy was taken on 2.11.1997 and the assured died on 26.6.1998. The proposal was accepted by the Insurance Company after due examination by its doctor. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company that the insured suffered from Dyspnoea for 2 years and swelling on both feet for one year prior to his death was rightly not accepted by Fora below. The Insurance Company relied upon the report of the Investigator in which it was stated that the insured suffered from Dyspnoea and swelling on both feet on the basis of record of Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. However, no affidavit of any doctor from Rajendra Hospital, Patiala was produced by the Insurance Company before the District Forum. In the light of these findings, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the insured had not disclosed illness in a contract of utmost faith to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had not been able to establish the concealment by leading proper and cogent evidence which could be accepted.

IN view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of Fora below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in orders of Fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself with no order as to costs.

THE Insurance Company was directed to deposit half of the awarded amount vide order dated 23.5.2009. In case the amount has been deposited by the Insurance Company, the complainant is permitted to withdraw the same and the liability of the Insurance Company shall be towards the balance amount which remains to be paid. Copy of the order be sent immediately to State Commission and District Forum. R.P. dismissed.