LIC OF INDIA vs KALLA VENKATRAO

OPPOSITE parties are the appellants. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Vizianagaram, in O.P. No. 83/97, dated 23.9.2002, the present appeal has been filed. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the appeal are set out as hereunder: Complainant is the husband of Kalla Adilakshmi, who took three insurance policies i.e., one for Rs. 25,000/- and one for Rs. 50,000/- and the other for Rs. 20,000/- respectively with bearing Nos. 690503908, 690714133 and 690688292. In the above three policies, the name of the complainant is noted as nominee and the wife of the complainant paid the premiums without any default. On 13.3.1995 at 9.20 p.m. the wife of the complainant died due to abdominal pain. The complainant being the nominee, sent all the relevant documents and claimed the amount under the policies. By a letter dated 30.3.1996 the third opposite party repudiated the policy amounts stating that the insured has suppressed material information with regard to her health condition. The complainant approached the District Forum seeking for appropriate relief.

OPPOSITE parties 1, 2 and 4 remained ex parte. The third opposite party alone filed a counter denying the averments made in the complaint. However, the third opposite party admitted the factum of insurance and contended that in the declaration made the deceased did not disclose about the T.A.H. operation and hence sought to justify the repudiation. Bases on the pleadings and Exs. A-1 to A-6 and B-1 to B-7, the District Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 95,000/- payable under three policies with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of realisation and also costs of Rs. 500/-. The District Forum also fixed Advocate''s fee at Rs. 2,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

MR. Singam Srinivasa Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended before us that the deceased has suppressed the fact that she has undergone T.A.H. operation. He also further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellants. After going through the record, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have not filed any document in support of their contentions. Even the affidavit evidence of doctors have not been filed to establish that the deceased Adilakshmi underwent T.A.H. operation. Further, there is no nexus between the alleged suppression of T.A.H. operation and the death. The District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. We do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance six weeks. Appeal dismissed.