NARINDER KAUR vs LIC OF INDIA

HEARD learned Counsel for parties. Registry has reported delay of 42 days in filing revision petition for which an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by petitioner, who is a lady. It seems from the reasonings assigned that considerable time was lost in accumulation of funds to which the petitioner began exercise for filing revision petition before National Commission, on appointment of a lawyer and this too, consumed a lot of time. Having considered submissions made on behalf of petitioner, we hereby condone the delay.

SMT . Narinder Kaur, the petitioner/complainant has picked up a conflict with Life Insurance Corporation of India, the respondent, in these proceedings, as the respondent repudiated her claim in respect of the death of her husband, Sh. Suresh Kumar, the assured. Sh. Suresh Kumar, the deceased, had obtained an insurance policy from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 on 15.2.2000. Unfortunately, Sh. Suresh Kumar expired on 6.10.2000. The claim filed by his wife, the petitioner, was repudiatedvide letter dated 15.7.2002 on the ground that Sh. Suresh Kumar had suppressed the fact that he was suffering from chronic "Myeloid Leukaemia " and was regularly getting treatment from PGIMS, Rohtak. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint. However, on appeal, preferred by the respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India, the State Commission accepted the appeal filed by it and set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint, after placing reliance on the authorities reported in 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, Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co., IV (2009) CPJ 8 (SC)=VI (2009) SLT 338=(2009) 8 SCC 316, Jothi Ammal v. LIC of India, 2003 (3) Con.LT 561 (SCDRC, Chennai) and decision of National Commission in RP 1167/1997 titled as LIC of India v. Minu Kalita, III (2002) CPJ 10 (NC), decided on 19.3.2002. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, half-heartedly, argued that the above said ailment cropped up immediately before the death of the deceased and he was not aware of the above said ailment.

ALL these arguments carry no conviction. The Proposal Form filled-up by the deceased goes to show that he had not disclosed the above said ailment, which bears his signature. On the other hand, the respondent has produced the claim form No. 3816 prepared by LIC of India, Divisional Office, Karnal. Its answer No. 3, is reproduced as follows: 2. What was the date of admission into the Hospital? ......4.7.2000 3. Under whose treat ment was the patient before he was admitted into the Hospital? If the patient had brought a letter or a note from any doctor at the time of admission, kindly furnish us with a copy thereof. 3. Follow up case of clinical Haematology clinic vide HO No. 1076. Known case of CML for 5-6 years on regular Rx From PGI Chandigarh. At the foot of the document, it further mentions as follows: "Known case of CML for 5-6 years on regular treatment from PGI Chandigarh presented with Bony Pains and General Weakness x 1 month. Joint Pains - B/1 knee B/1 shoulders B/1 elbow History of pain abdomen associated with mass upper left abdomen which is gradually increasing in size for last 8-10 days. Examination revealed Generalised Pallor, Hepatospleno-magaly, and tenderness in all body joints. Imp. CML with accelerated phase with ''Septic arthritis '' Bony infiltra-tion Certified that the above information is correct as per records of the Hospital. Date.......... Signature Sd/- Doctor ''s name Sandeep Batra. Qualifications MD, Med. Designations Sr. Registrar, Medicine, Deptt. of Medicine Name of the PGIMS, Rohtak Hospital Wd 9, Medicine, Address PGIMS, Rohtak ".

This document, which is of utmost importance has got deleterious effect on the case of the petitioner. Nothing was produced to scrub the above said evidence. It was not denied that the deceased was getting regular treatment from PGI, Chandigarh, for the last 5-6 years. It is thus clear that the deceased kept the real facts under the hat and stated untruth before the LIC. Revision Petition being without any merit, is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.