LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. S HYMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has arisen out of the order dated 3.8.1994 passed by Andhra Pradesh State Commission at Hyderabad dismissing the appeal of Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short called L.I.C.) and confirming the order dated 15.9.1993 of District Forum, Warangal wherein it was held that the claims under the two Insurance Policies were wrongfully repudiated by the L.I.C. and directing payment of the amount covered by the policies with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass and may be noticed. The Complainant's husband Shri S. Narasaiah had taken two Insurance Policies on own life, one for Rs. 7,000/- in pursuance of the proposal dated 28/29.3.1988 and the second for Rs. 25,000/- in pursuance of proposal dated 23.10.1988. The policies issued by L.I.C. are No. 840166220 and No. 880200863 respectively. The assured died on 13.5.1991. The Complainant who is the nominee under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, lodged two claims under the said policies with L.I.C. By two separate but identical letters dated 22.1.1992 L.I.C. repudiated all liability under the polices on account of the deceased having withheld correct information at the time of effecting the assurance regarding his health. The Complainant then filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum at Warangal (Andhra Pradesh) being CD. No. 382 / 92. On being noticed L.I.C. filed its counter reiterating that as the insurance contracts are contracts based on the principles of utmost good faith, there is a responsibility cast on the assured to give full and correct information to the questions contained in the proposal form and as the assured withheld material information and gave wrong answers as to his previous medical history, the claim was repudiated. It is contended that the complaint was not maintainable as the matter was investigated by L.I.C. and considering all aspects their liability was rightly repudiated.

(3.) WE find that the appreciation of evidence by the District Forum as well as the State Commission has been in accordance with sound established principles and the conclusions drawn are based on evidence on record. The impugned orders are not vitiated by any illegality or error in the exercise of jurisdiction by them. The burden lay on the L.I.C. to establish that the policy holder has made a statement fraudulently, knowing that the statement was false or there is a deliberate suppression on material facts. Both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have concurrently found that the Insurer has not discharged the burden and the act of repudiation is not bonafide. There is no error of law or of jurisdictional defect warranting any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The amount deposited by L.I.C. as a condition of stay granted by this Commission on 20.12.1994 may be paid to the Complainant by the State Commission expeditiously.