LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. RANGRAJ MEHTA
LAWS(RAJCDRC)-2007-8-2
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 02,2007

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
RANGRAJ MEHTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants LIC against order dated 26.4.2000 passed by the District Forum, Pali in Complaint No. 174/1997 by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac in respect of policy No. 100051907 to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances - That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum on 17.3.1997 inter alia stating that his father Bhanwarlal, now deceased had taken an insurance policy bearing No. 100051907 for a sum of Rs. 1 lac from the appellants on 17.3.1993. It was further stated in the complaint that on 17.3.1993 a sum of Rs. 10,474 were paid as premium and thus policy should be treated to come in force w.e.f. 17.3.1993 and if additional premium to the tune of Rs. 1,890 was paid by the deceased on 15.7.1993, that would not make any difference. It was further stated that on 21.9.1994 the deceased had died because of the disease of cancer at Bombay and thereafter claim was preferred by the complainant respondent being the son and nominee of the deceased but that claim was repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 30.3.1995 inter alia stating that prior to 15.7.1993, the date on which additional premium was paid by the deceased, the deceased was suffering from the diseases just as swelling groin, fever, inguinal edonitis and since these facts were suppressed by the deceased, therefore, deceased was guilty of suppression of material facts regarding his health and he deliberately made misstatement and withheld material information. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed by the complainant respondent. A reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum on 23.5.1997 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were taken by them in the repudiation letter dated 30.3.1995. Apart from that it was stated that initially the premium was paid by the deceased on 17.3.1993 and he was got medically examined on 25.3.1993 and Rs. 1,890 was paid by him as additional premium on 15.7.1993 and thus the policy had come into force w.e.f. 28.6.1993. It was further replied that since before 15.7.1993 the deceased had taken treatment from Dr. Dhariwal and the decesed was aware of the fact that he was suffering from the disease of cancer. Therefore, since these facts were not disclosed by the deceased. Hence, he was guilty of suppression of material facts regarding his health and the claim was rightly repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 30.3.1995. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Pali through impugned order dated 26.4.2000 had followed the complaint inter alia holding that the appellants had failed to prove the fact that even prior to 17.3.1993 or at the most 28.6.1993 or at the most 15.7.1993 the deceased was aware of the fact that he was suffering from the disease of cancer. Aggrieved from the said order of the District Forum, Pali, this appeal has been filed by the appellants LIC.
(3.) IN this appeal the main case of the appellants is that before issuance of the policy in question, the deceased was suffering from the disease of cancer for which he took medical treatment and since these facts were not disclosed by the deceased deliberately, therefore, he was guilty of suppression of material facts regarding health and thus on that ground the claim of the complainant respondent was rightly repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 30.3.1995 and the District Forum has committed serious error and illegality in decreeing the claim of the complainant respondent. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order of the District Forum.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.