Haryana

StateCommission

A/432/2017

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALAK SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN CHAWLA

17 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First Appeal No.432 of 2017

Date of the Institution: 11.04.2017

Date of Decision: 17.07.2017

 

1.      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its Managing Director.

2.      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Opposite the office of G.P.O., Ambala Cant. through its Authorized signatory.

                                                                                .….Appellants

Versus

Balak Singh S/o Sh.Sawan Singh R/o Village Uplana P.O., Thakurpura, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Varun Chawla, Advocate for the appellants.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          As per complainant and his wife obtained insurance policy of Rs.2,50,000/- from the opposite parties (O.Ps.) commencing from 08.10.2007.  Unfortunately she died on 22.04.2008 due to brain hemorrhage.  He submitted claim with the O.Ps., but, the same was not allowed.

2.      In reply, it  was alleged by O.Ps. that at the time of obtaining insurance policy she was suffering from blood pressure and was diagnosed as a case of Concentric Left Ventricular Hypetrophy and Grade-1 Diastolic Lv Dysfunction  vide report dated 08.08.2007 and was receiving treatment from Dr.S.K.Gupta of Naraingarh. This fact was concealed while obtaining insurance policy, so he was not entitled for any compensation.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 15.02.2017 and directed as under:-

“i        To pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (sum assured as mentioned in Annexure C-2) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint to till its actual realization.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have  preferred this appeal on 19.04.2017. Today appellants have also filed an application under order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (In short “Civil Procedure”) to produce additional evidence.

5.      Arguments qua application as well as admission of appeal are heard. File perused.

6.      It is argued by learned counsel for appellantsthat the docket containing documents was misplaced and that is why the documents mentioned in application, could not be produced which are clearly showing that complainant was suffering from heart problem while obtaining insurance policy, but, concealed this fact. So, they be allowed to produce this evidence. It is also argued that when a party has concealed fact of illness then insured or L.Rs. are not entitled for compensation, so impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7.      This argument is of no avail. From the perusal of impugned order it is clear that appellants aware about the aforesaid illness and that is why averments  about the same were raised.  It is clearly mentioned in the impugned order that despite several opportunities appellants did not produce evidence and that is why the same was closed vide order dated 29.01.2014. In such a situation appellants should have requested for permission to lead additional evidence in the very beginning, but, they have moved this application after three months of filing of appeal. It shows that appellants are abusing the process of law. Neither they were serious before learned District forum nor they are serious before this Commission. More-so, additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill up the lacunas.  It can only be produced if the same was not to the notice of any concerned party during pendency of the matter. So this request cannot be accepted.  

8.      Be it that as it may, even if we go through the documents produced with this application it cannot be presumed that there was any concealment by the complainant.  Vide clause ‘D’ of proposal form she was asked to tell whether she was suffering from heart problem except chest pain, high BP etc. For ready reference, caluse D is as under:-

“Any diseases and disorders of the Cardiovascular system such as but not limited to chest pain, heart disease, high/low blood pressure, artery or blood disease?

It means that she was not supposed to tell about blood pressure. As per documents produced with application, complainant was suffering from blood pressure/hypertension and not from any other treatment. Hon’ble National Commission has clearly opined in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Valsa Jose 2013 (1) CLT 418 that hypertension is not a chronic ailment and is usually a lifestyle disease which can be easily controlled with conservative medication. It is no-where alleged that the complainant was suffering from diabetes or other ailments. 

9.      More so complainant obtained insurance policy on 11.07.2007 whereas alleged report is dated 08.08.2007. She gave cheque of Rs.25,000/- dated 22.06.2007. It has no-where come in evidence that before report she was aware about this disease. So it cannot be considered as concealment of previous ailment. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Appeal  as well as application are without any merits and the same are hereby dismissed in limine.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and verification, if any.

July 17th, 2017                      Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                                             Member                                              Judicial Member                                                       Addl. Bench                                       Addl.Bench               

S.K.