LIC OF INDIA vs MOTIA RANI

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1912/2002 - Motia Rani Vs. LIC of India by which, while allowing appeal, order of District forum dismissing complaint was set aside and complaint was allowed.

Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant/respondent Gulshan Rai had got himself insured for Rs.1,50,000/- with the opposite party/petitioner under policy no. 171000037 commenced in October, 1995. The first premium was paid on 31.10.1995 to the tune of Rs.5,724/-. The date of risk cover under the policy was from 28.8.1995. Unfortunately, the life assured died during the intervening night of 26/27.12.1995 at Panipat. The complainant being the nominee of the deceased submitted claim with the respondent with respect to the above said

policy but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 17.11.1997 on the ground that the life assured had given wrong answers in response to the questions 11 (b) and (d) of the proposal form pertaining to the admission of the insured in a hospital and sufferance of a disease pertaining to heart and against the question 11 (i) regarding usual state of health, by stating it as good. Though, in fact the patient had taken treatment in a hospital from 10.7.1995 to 12.7.1995 on account of acute Miocardial infraction. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that claim was rightly repudiated on the basis of wrong answers regarding his health and suppression of material fact and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint vide order dated 10.9.1999. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission and learned State Commission remanded the matter to District forum. After remand, learned District Forum again dismissed complaint. Complainant filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed complaint against which, this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of hospitalization of deceased Gulshan Rai, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

OP repudiated claim on the ground that deceased Gulshan Rai has given wrong answers about his health and hospitalization whereas, before 3? months of having policy, he was hospitalized for 3 days on account of acute Miocardial infarction. In support of repudiation letter, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards certificate of Batra Hospital and report obtained by OP from Dr. Batra. Perusal of certificate reveals that Gulshan Rai S/o Shri Fakir Chand was admitted in Batra Hospital. In the report taken by OP from Dr. Batra, OP wanted report of Gulshan Rai S/o Sh. Fakir Chand, but Dr. Batra clearly mentioned name of patient as Gulshan Kumar. No evidence has been placed by OP on record to prove that Gulshan Rai and Gulshan Kumar were one and the same person. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that Gulshan Rai was suffering from any disease and he was admitted in the hospital for 3 days for treatment of acute Miocardial infarction and OP without placing appropriate evidence committed deficiency in repudiating claim.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.