BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

 F.A.No.583/2013 against C.C.No.01/2012 District Forum, Khammam.

Between:

Tulasi Radhika W/o.late Shiv Bahadur Singh,

Aged 35 years, Occ:Housewife,

R/o.Dornakal of Warangal District.                                                                 Appellant/

                                                                                                                complainant

And

1. The Branch Manager, Reliance Life

Insurance Co. Ltd., Upstairs, ING

Vysya Bank, Opp:Andhra Bank

Main Branch, Gandhichowk,

Khammam0570 003.

1. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2.  

R-Tech Park, Mirlon compound,

Next to Hub Mall, Behind I-flex

Goregaon (East) Mumbai.                                                             Respondents/Opp.parties.
 

Counsel for the  Appellant: Mr.K.Venkateswarlu.

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s.A.Naveen Kumar.

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

Oral Order (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalaKrishna Tamada, President)

***

        The unsuccessful complainant, who is the wife of the deceased late Thakur Shiv Bahadur Singh, is the appellant and this appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum at Khammam made in C.C.No.01/2012 whereby the claim of the appellant was rejected.

        The brief facts are that the husband of the appellant by name, Thakur Shiv Bahadur Singh, obtained Reliance Term Plan policy bearing No.17673445 on 07-8-2010 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- covering his life.  He died on 28-2-2011 and in those circumstances, his wife i.e. the appellant herein approached the opposite parties claiming the insurance amount, covered under the said policy dated 07-8-2010.  Thereafter as the opposite parties were postponing payment of the amount, she got issued a legal notice dated 09-11-2011 for which the opposite party issued a reply repudiating her claim stating that the appellant is not entitled for the said sum for the reason that the appellant’s husband was suffering from cancer by the time, the policy was issued and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the opposite parties.  In those circumstances, she filed the complaint claiming the amount covered under the policy being the nominee of the deceased together with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and costs.

        After service of notice, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed written statement contending that their investigation revealed that the insured suffered from tongue cancer since July, 2009 and was  treated as in-patient at Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Hyderabad from 14-7-2009 and died on 28-2-2011 and the said fact was suppressed by the deceased policy holder at the time of proposal  and gave negative answers related to his health to clause Nos.29 and 31.  They alleged that the insurance contracts are based on principle of utmost good faith and as such it is the duty of the insured to disclose all the material facts within his knowledge and  submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.

        After perusing the entire material on record including Exs.A1 to A7 marked on behalf of the appellant, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is suppression of fact by the life assured and in those circumstances held that the appellant is not entitled for the insured amount and accordingly dismissed the complaint by its order dated 14-6-2013.

        As stated supra, the said order is challenged before us.

        Heard. 

The two important dates which decide the entire case are the date of the policy and the date of admission into the hospital.  Apparently, the policy according to the case of the appellant/complainant is dated 07-8-2010 and Ex.A3 marked by the appellant i.e. Discharge summary, clearly indicate that the insured was admitted into the hospital on 14-7-2009 much prior to the date of taking the policy.  As per the said discharge summary, Ex.A3, the insured was suffering from ‘Ca Tongue right’. In those circumstances, it is clear that the insured was suffering  from cancer by the time he took the said   policy   on  07-8-2010  and  the  said fact  was  not  brought  to   the notice  of  the   respondents    at  the time of taking the policy. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the District Forum is justified in dismissing the complaint.

        Accordingly this appeal fails and is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                        Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                     Dt.06-6-2014.