RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) BIRLA Sun Life Insurance Company has filed this revision challenging the order of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. ten lacs along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This liability arises out of insurance claim filed by respondent No. 1 in regard to the death of his son insured with the petitioner. The respondent Keshav Lal had filed an application at pre- litigation stage before the Lok Adalat for payment of this insurance claim. How the Insurance Companies are first alluring people to buy their policies and leave them to contest in various courts for getting the benefit thereof is well exemplified in the present case. This is noticed to be usual practice almost with all Insurance Companies. They are seemed to be repudiating the claims almost universally on one pretext or the other making the persons to fight for their legal dues. This mind set on the part of the Insurance Company must change. They seem to be relying on one technicality or the other, which Of course are required to be ignored.
(2.) THE facts in this case would reveal the agony of a person, whose son had bought this insurance policy. Deceased Puneet had obtained life insurance policy on 9.2.2006 in the sum of Rs. ten lacs from the petitioner. He was subjected to thorough medical examination by panel of doctors before policy was issued to him and after detailed verification and medical examination, policy No. 000564990 was issued to deceased Puneet. Having got this policy in February, 2006, Puneet breathed his last on 21.12.2006 due to vomitus aspiration. His father-respondent Keshav Lal, nominee under the policy, applied for claim on account of death of his son as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The ever obliging Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 10.7.2007. It is revealed that investigator was appointed by the petitioner-company, who has reported that the insured person was known case of bronchitis and had been undergoing treatment for this ailment for the last 2-3 years. This, however, was seriously disputed by the respondent-father, who maintained that insured never suffered from any ailment and the report given by the investigator is false. When the Insurance Company did not listen to his cries, which became loud on account of the unreasonable action on the part of the Insurance Company, he filed the present application.
(3.) THE Insurance Company has stuck to its stand that the insured was a known case of bronchitis. It is pointed out that he had consulted Dr. Anand Bhayana for treatment. The Insurance Company also relied on the statement of Dr. Bhayana that he was having repeated attacks of bronchitis. It is then mentioned that while obtaining the policy, the insured had replied in the negative to a question whether he remained on diet or on any medicine prescribed by any doctor or ever consulted any doctor or had sought advice asthma, chronic cough, pneumonia, shortness of breath, T.B. or any other respiratory or any lung disorder. Claiming that the insured amounted to suppression on material facts, the claim was repudiated.;