AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OP against the order dated 06.02.2008 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 854/06 - LIC of India & Ors. Vs. Smt. Vinod Devi by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent ''s husband Radhey Shyam Saharan now deceased obtained two LIC policies for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each on 15.12.2000. On account of non-payment of premium policies had lapsed but both the policies were revived on 6.10.2004 by Radhey Shyam Saharan. Radhey Shyam Saharan died on 16.11.2004 and complainant preferred claim before OP/petitioner, but that was repudiated by OP through letter dated 21.3.2005 on the ground that on the date of revival of the policies, a fresh declaration form was submitted by Radhey Shyam Saharan and in that declaration he had stated that he was not suffering from any kind of disease whereas he was suffering from the disease of cancer and had taken the treatment. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP/Petitioner contested complaint and submitted that Radhey Shyam Saharan was admitted in the hospital on 14.7.2004 and was discharged on 19.7.2004 and Malignant round cell tumor was found and chemotherapy was recommended and Radhey Shyam Saharan was suffering from cancer at the time of revival of policy; hence, denied deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint against which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of revival, the assured suppressed fact of undergoing treatment and also falsely answered the questions in personal statement regarding his health; even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and order of State Commission be set aside and complaint be dismissed.
ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that deceased was never admitted in the hospital for more than a week; hence, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference and revision petition be dismissed. It is admitted case of the parties that Radhey Shyam Saharan, deceased obtained two insurance policies from the petitioner on 28.3.2000 and both the policies lapsed which were revived on 6.10.2004 after submitting fresh declaration. It is also admitted that Radhey Shyam Saharan died on 16.11.2004. It is also not disputed that as per record of the hospital, Radhey Shyam Saharan remained in the hospital from 14.7.2004 to 19.7.2004 and as per record of SMS hospital, Malignant round cell tumor was found and chemotherapy was recommended.
LEARNED State Commission has rightly held that if the policy is revived, fresh declaration form is filled by the insured, it amounts to fresh contract.
IT is also admitted position that deceased was not hospitalized for a week or more, but at the time of revival of policy, Radhey Shyam Saharan declared his health to be good in the personal declaration form which is apparently not correct because before about 3 months of declaration, Radhey Shyam Saharan was admitted in SMS hospital and Malignant round cell tumor was found and chemotherapy was recommended. Thus, it becomes clear that Radhey Shyam Saharan was suffering from cancer at the time of revival of policy and he has given false declaration about his health. In P.C. Chacko & Anr. Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others - (2008) 1 SCC 321, Hon ''ble Apex Court observed as under: Misstatement by itself is not material for repudiation of the policy unless the same is material in nature. But, a deliberate wrong answer which has a great bearing on the contract of insurance, if discovered may lead to the policy being vitiated in law. The purpose for taking a policy of insurance is not very material. It may serve the purpose of social security but then the same should not be obtained with a fraudulent act by the insured. Proposal can be repudiated if a fraudulent act is discovered ". In the light of above observations, policy can be assailed on the ground of deliberate wrong answers on material issues as per hospital record before revival. Radhey Shyam Saharan was suffering from cancer and he was recommended chemotherapy and no such document has been placed on record to prove the fact that after taking treatment of cancer, he was perfectly healthy. After deducting cancer, Radhey Shyam Saharan died within 4 months and in such circumstances, it can very well be inferred that on account of cancer, Radhey Shyam Saharan died.
AS Radhey Shyam Saharan at the time of revival of lapsed insurance policies suppressed material fact regarding Malignant round cell tumor and furnished false answers regarding his health, petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and in such circumstances, revision petition is to be allowed.
CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order 06.02.2008 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in Appeal No. 854/06 - LIC of India & Ors. Vs. Smt. Vinod Devi is set aside and complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.