POSTMASTER GENERAL vs BHATERI

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Jind directing the appellant to make the payment of the insured amount of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith other benefits attached thereto in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Postal Life Insurance Policy to the respondents.

IN the complaint preferred by the respondents, it was averred that the deceased Mohinder Singh who was employed as a multi-purpose health worker had submitted a proposal for a postal endowment insurance for Rs. 25,000/-. After completion of formalities, it was accepted on the 27th of August, 1990. Thereafter the deceased continued to pay the insurance premium of Rs. 124/- per month upto the 7th of December, 1990. But unfortunately, he expired later on the 27th of December, 1990. The widow and the minor sons and daughter of the deceased being his surviving legal heirs claimed the insurance money and also furnished all the necessary documents sought for by the appellants. However, the appellants repudiated the policy without any reason on the flimsy grounds that Mohinder Singh had died of cancer which was concealed from the appellant at the time of insurance. Despite further protestations, no redress was afforded by the appellant-Department compelling the respondents to knock at the door of the District Forum. The relevant documentary evidence was annexed with the complaint. On notice being issued the appellant-Department took up the plea that the deceased Mohinder Singh by making the proposal was guilty of having concealed the material facts, of his being a patient of cancer. It was the case that he had under-gone treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Rohtak and had also remained on leave from the 26th of June, 1990 to 25th of August, 1990. The rejection was sought to be justified under Rule 7-A of the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules. A copy of the endowment insurance policy Annexure R-l and Annexure R-2 being a transcript of Rule 7-A above mentioned and R-3 and R-4 were annexed to the written statement.

In support of the complainant's case Smt. Bhateri, the widow of the deceased put in her detailed affidavit supporting each and every averments in the complaint. She was not in any way challenged by way of cross-examination nor were the documents relied upon by her assailed and infact were admitted. The appellant-Department treated the matter somewhat cavalierly and produced no further evidence in rebuttal or to establish there stand of non-disclosure and material suppression.

THE District Forum in its considered and concise order accepted the complainant's case in the absence of any meaningful rebuttal and granted relief in the terms noticed at the very out-set. Mr. I.S. Sidhu, the learned Counsel for the appellant faced with the up-hill task of assailing the order under appeal was somewhat half-hearted in his submission. It was conceded that the material proposal form made by the deceased which was the foundation for the alleged concealment and non-disclosure had not been produced on the record nor had any affirmative evidence been led on behalf of the appellants to establish their stand. In this context, the primal submission was that at this stage, some additional unproved documents be allowed to be placed on the record to buttress the appeal.

WE are unable to accede to the primal submission of the appellant for re-opening the matter and allowing further evidence at this stage. It is manifest from the written statement of the appellants that their whole case revolved around the proposal form of the deceased, which was alleged to contain misstatements and suppressions. Curiously, they chose to with-hold that document before the District Forum, whilst producing others in support of their case. In the grounds of appeal not a hint of the need for any additional evidence has been made. No separate application for the same purpose has been placed on the record. In this context, learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to make out any case at all for additional evidence at the appellate stage. Plainly enough that would be unfair hardship on the respondent-consumer who are the widow and the orphaned children of the deceased. Apart from the above, the District Forum in no uncertain terms recorded as under : - "No order has been placed on record to show as to how and under what circumstances, the authorities were justified in rescinding the contract of insurance. The proposal form has also not been placed on record to support an inference that it was a case if mis-information/dis-information regarding the state of health of person insured. In the attested affidavit filed by the window, she has made a categorical assertion that her husband did not suffer from any type of cancer at the time of Insurance and he had not concealed any information." No challenge worth the name could be laid against the aforesaid finding of the District Forum. It is manifest that the core of the appellant's case is a non-disclosure or mis-statement made in the proposal form. When that document was not even produced on the record, no question of the same being false or containing misstatement or suppression could possibly arise. Equally it deserves highlighting that the appellants did not ever choose to cross-examine the complainant with regard to her affidavit evidence, which consequently had rightly to be accepted as true. Significantly, the appellants led no affidavit evidence of their own in rebuttal. In this state of the record, the challenge to the order under appeal is patently futile.

FOR the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs, which are assessed at the figure of Rs. 200/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.