M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay pay the policy amount with 18% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and cost of Rs.7500/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.27.6.2007 in OP.No.15/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 20.4.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: The facts leading to the subject The wife of the 1st complainant, and adoptive mother of the 2nd complainant, by name Thamaraiselvi, had taken two life insurance policies, from the opposite parties, for Rs.1 lakh and Rs.50000/-, in 2001 and 1997 respectively, wherein she had nominated 2nd complainant as nominee.
(2.) The policy holder, all of a sudden affected by the breast cancer, died on 17.10.2004. Claims were made, based upon the policies, Rs.50000/- policy was honoured, repudiating the policy of the year 2001, wherein sum assured was Rs.1 lakh unjustifiably, without any reason, against established procedure, thereby causing mental agony also, for which the complainants are entitled to compensation. Thus claiming the policy amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest, or in the alternative for the repayment of the premium paid, alongwith compensation of Rs.3 lakhs, including certain other reliefs, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, Nagapattinam.
(3.) The opposite parties, admitting the policies taken by Thamaraiselvi, opposed the claim, contending that the policy for Rs.1 lakh, after lapse, was revived on 16.12.2002,which should be construed as a fresh contract of policy, that when a claim was made, investigation conducted, revealed that the assured was suffering from breast cancer, for which she was taking treatment from 3.4.2002, as well applied medical leave, which were suppressed at the time of declaring health, as well as submitting the proposal for renewal/ revival, which should be construed as material suppression of facts, on which basis alone, the claim based upon the 2nd policy was repudiated, cannot be faulted, or named as deficiency in service, in view of the settled proposition of law, thereby prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.;