K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The complainant in COP No.47/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: - Her husband one Arunachalam had taken two policies on his life from the opposite parties, one for Rs.1 lakh and the other for Rs.20,000/-. The complainant's husband died on 20/5/1998. The complainant submitted her claim dated 11/6/1998 for payment of the amounts due under the policies. The opposite parties accepted the claim of the complainant with respect to the policy for Rs.20,000/- and issued a cheque for Rs.38,282/-. They rejected the claim with respect to the other policy for Rs.1 lakh on the ground that there was suppression of material fact while the policy was taken. When the Opposite parties have settled the claim with respect to one policy it was not proper on their part to refuse to settle the claim with regard to the other policy. In such circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.
(2.) The Opposite parties took the following stand: - The Assured was issued a policy with risk commencing from 28/9/93. He died on 29/5/98 within one year and 7 months of the revival of the policy. The claim was treated as an early claim and statutory investigation was done. It was found that as per the C.M.C. records the Assured had died due to renal and congestive heart failure after having been a known case of diabetes for about 23 years. The life assured having suppressed his past illness of chronic diabetes mellitus both at the time of proposal and revival by giving positive answers to the questions contained in the proposal form and also declaration of good health dated 26/11/96 the opposite parties had taken a lenient view of the non-early claim as regards another policy of the life assured and settled that claim. In fact they also took a further lenient view and decided to refund on exgratia basis the premia amount received for the revival effected on 26/11/96 and the subsequent premia received under the policy. There was no deficiency in service.
(3.) On the side of the complainant, Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.;