Nakul vs LIC OF INDIA

WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and have considered the grounds set out in the revision petition in order to challenge the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular that the State Commission found that the life assured was suffering from certain disease and had received treatment for the same for about four and half years before making the proposal for insurance but suppressed the said material facts in the declaration given by him in the proposal form, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the State Commission are eminently justified and are in consonance with the decision of Supreme Court in the case of P.C. Chacko & Anr. v. Chairman, LIC of India, III (2008) CPJ 78 (SC)=IX (2007) SLT 533=IV (2007) ACC 773 (SC)=IV (2007) CLT 229 (SC)=(2008) 1 SCC 321, and Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co., IV (2009) CPJ 8 (SC)=VI (2009) SLT 338=(2009) 8 SCC 316, where in the similar circumstances the Supreme Court held that suppression of such material fact about the status of health by the life assured disentitles the nominee/heirs of the insurance claim. In our view the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed as devoid of any merit.

REVISION Petitions dismissed.