Rasheeda Khatoon vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC).

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant, since deceased, Safatulla Khan, had taken four LIC Policies on different dates and the complainant was the nominee. Upon the death of the insured, when claim was preferred with the LIC, it was repudiated on the ground that he had suppressed the material with regard to his health and had suppressed the information that he was suffering from Hypertension, L.S. Haemiplesia, Diabetes and Inter Cerebral Hemorrhage. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, which allowed the claim in respect of three policies along with interest @ 12% from 9.10.1995. Since the fourth policy was lying in lapsed condition, it was not ordered to be paid. The amount was ordered to be paid within two months failing which the interest was to go upto 18% p.a. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent LIC filed an appeal before the State Commission, who relying upon the report of one Dr. B.I. Singh, Sr. Consultant, allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this revision petition has been filed before us.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The first objection taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the revision petition filed before us is signed by the petitioner but the supporting affidavit is filed by her son. While we find that this is a statement of fact, but keeping in view the fact that the letter of authority has been given in favour of her son by the petitioner and we find the petition has been signed by the petitioner, we are unable to sustain this preliminary objection by the learned Counsel for the respondent.

AS far as the merit is concerned, there is no disputing the fact that the State Commission has dismissed the complaint based on the report dated 23.2.1995 of Dr. B.I. Singh, Sr. Consultant, which has been produced before us. It is not in dispute, that no affidavit by the concerned Doctor was filed, whose report has been filed. There is no other material to substantiate as to who is this Dr. B.I. Singh, as also, in what context did he go to him, as also where is the hospital record on which this report has been based? Had any affidavit been filed or original record of hospital/consultant filed/produced, that would have given an opportunity to the petitioner to cross -examine him.

THE legal position of the case is, that this report remains unsubstantiated, unproven and, in our view, the State Commission fell in error in relying upon an unproven document, hence the order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained, which is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is restored.

THE revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. R.P. disposed of.