- (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , arises from order dated 1.9.2004 in Complaint No. 180/2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the District Forum for short), dismissing the appellant s complaint.
(2.) INDISPUTABLY the deceased proposer Vrindavan Seth was father of present minor complainants/appellants. It is also not in dispute that Vrindavan Seth obtained 2 Money Back Children s Assurance (without profits) policies from the respondent/insurer. Complainants were the life assured under the said policies. It is also not in dispute that the deceased proposer Vrindavan Seth expired on 8.6.2002. The claim of the minor complainants was preferred through their mother, wife of the deceased proposer Vrindavan Seth. The claim was however, repudiated by the insurer by letter dated 7.11.2002, on the ground of suppression of material facts.
(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the respondent/insurer mainly on the ground that the deceased proposer suppressed material facts regarding his ailment in his proposal on 27.3.2002. It was alleged that before submitting the proposal form, the deceased Vrindavan Seth was suffering from breathlessness and weakness since 22.3.2002. In view of the above the complainants were not entitled to the benefit under the policy. District Forum observed that the deceased got himself treated in Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. The case history recorded in the said hospital on 22.5.2002 indicates that he was suffering from breathelessness and weakness from 2 months, prior to the said date. It was also observed by the District Forum that the nature of ailment suffered by the deceased indicated that he must have been suffering from the said ailment from before submission of proposal form. It was, therefore, held that there was material suppression of facts by the deceased and, therefore, respondent/insurer justifiably repudiated the complainants claim.;