- (1.) THIS is complainant s appeal against the order dated 11.11.1999 passed by the District Forum, Nainital, dismissing consumer complaint No. 114 of 1997, filed for award of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -, the amount assured under the policy of insurance purchased by complainant s wife late Dr. (Smt.) Urmila Joshi on 27.03.1991 together with interest and damages amounting to Rs. 20,000/ -.
(2.) COMPLAINT was filed with the allegations that the life assured under the policy of insurance died on 28.09.1993; that the deceased Dr. (Smt.) Urmila Joshi suddenly fell sick about 5 -6 months before her death; that the opposite party No. 1 made deficiency in service in repudiating the claim preferred for award of assured sum and benefits under the insurance policy payable to the complainant as nominee, on the ground that the life assured was suffering from heart ailment since 1968 and had undergone closed mitral valvotomy in the year 1968 and that she had made incorrect statements and withheld correct information in the proposal form submitted for purchasing the insurance policy; that the complainant got married with the life assured in the year 1974 and in the year 1975, the life assured joined Uttar Pradesh State Medical Services as a doctor after she was found medically fit to join the services and continued to serve as such till her death and that the life assured had made correct statements and gave correct information in regard to question Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 24 of the proposal form. With the above allegations, the claim for assured sum etc. under the policy was made in the consumer complaint.
(3.) THE opposite party No. 1 Life Insurance Corporation of India contested the complaint mainly on the ground that it had been revealed by the certificate dated 13.12.1996 of the Medical Superintendent, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi that the life assured had undergone closed mitral valvotomy in the year 1968, which clearly indicate that the life assured was well known of her heart disease and she being a doctor herself, ought to have known the gravity of her disease, but deliberately concealed the material fact as regards her disease to purchase the insurance policy to make illegal gains and that the claim preferred has rightly been repudiated and no deficiency in service has, therefore, been made. The consumer complaint came up for hearing before the District Forum on 11.11.1999 and the same was disposed of by the order, which read as below: xxx xxx xxx;