R.P. Dholakia, J. - (1.) AGAINST present appellant, a complaint has been filed by respondent as heir and legal representative of Gaurishankar Gurjar before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (Rural) which has been numbered as Complaint No. 140 of 2012 which later on came to be renumbered as Complaint No. 281 of 2012. The complainant's case before the District Forum was that her husband had obtained a PLI policy for Rs. 2,40,000 on 2.12.2008. However, her husband expired on 2.1.2011 at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad because of heart attack. Post -mortem was also performed. The complainant thereafter submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to the appellant by letter dated 2.12.2011 but the claim has been repudiated by the appellant on the ground that husband of the complainant has taken leave for a period of 30 days and according to the appellant same fact was not disclosed in the proposal form by her husband. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the repudiation of the claim, she filed complaint before the District Forum as stated above, praying for the insurance amount and other reliefs. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint of the complainant directing the opponents to pay the complainant Rs. 2,40,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation with Rs. 5,000 for mental agony and Rs. 3,000 towards cost of the complaint Being aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the original opponents have filed the present appeal before this Commission. As there was delay in lodging the appeal, along with the appeal, the appellant also filed Civil Misc. Application for condonation of delay being CMA No. 729 of 2013. Said application was granted on 6.9.2013 and delay condoned. The office was directed to give number to the appeal and place it for admission hearing. Today, the appeal has come up before us for admission hearing.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Bhagyodaya Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant at length. We also gone through the reasoned judgment delivered by the District Forum. It has been mainly contended by Mr. Mishra that husband of the complainant has suppressed material fact that he had enjoyed leave for a period of 30 days from 18.8.2008 to 19.9.2008 and according to him it is a material suppression and therefore the complainant would not be entitled for any compensation as prayed for. In support of this contention he took us to the relevant para of the judgment. The District Forum has discussed the same in detail considering the various judgments. The Forum has also noted that when contention has been raised by the appellant in the original complaint regarding suppression of material fact of illness and he has not disclosed the same while submitting the proposal form, the appellant was required to adduce evidence to that effect. Further, as transpires from the judgment of the District Forum, the appellant had appointed Investigator to investigate the matter and the report has been submitted but a copy of the report of the Investigator is not on record. No affidavit of the Investigator has been produced. Further, except the oral contention, no other satisfactory documentary evidence has been produced by the appellant proving their contention that the deceased was ill and he suppressed material fact and more particularly when the complainant has come out with the case that the deceased was not sick at the relevant time. It was bounden duty of the appellant to prove its case and more particularly keeping in mind the fact that the policy has been obtained on 2.12.2008 and he died on 2.1.2011. In absence of any satisfactory evidence we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant. The order passed by the District Forum is just, legal and proper and we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. The appeal therefore requires to be rejected. Rejected accordingly, at the stage of admission.;