NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1717/2006

LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALVEER KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

MRS. PANKAJ BALA VERMA

05 Oct 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 20 Jul 2006

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1717/2006
(Against the Order dated 04/10/2006 in Appeal No. 191/2004 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIAJIVAN PRAKASH BHAWANI SING ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 302005 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. BALVEER KAURR/O VILLAGE 31 H POST 30 H, VIA DALPATSINGHPUR SRIKARANPUR DISTT. SRIGANGANAGAR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MRS. PANKAJ BALA VERMA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 05 Oct 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Life Insurance Corporation of India, the petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Case of the complainant/respondent is that her husband had taken a policy in the sum of Rs.1 Lac from the petitioner.  After death of her husband, being the nominee of the policy she filed an insurance claim with the petitioner which was repudiated on the

-2-

ground that the husband had given wrong information about his health.  After repudiation, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          Before the District Forum, petitioner did not produce the proposal forum.  The evidence showing that the insured was suffering from ‘Cancer’ of his left jaw, was not produced.  Petitioner also did not produce the original document duly signed by the Doctor.  District Forum allowed the complaint after recording the finding that the respondent had failed to show that the deceased was suffering from ‘Cancer’ and he was aware of this fact at the time of filling the proposal forum.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  Before the State Commission, the proposal form was filed which was taken on record.  State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and held that repudiation claim by the petitioner was not justified; the same was without any basis and on wrong assumption of facts.  The same was held to be Arbitrary.   State Commission has also noted that the

-3-

petitioner had failed to produce the original record and the Bed-Head Ticket was not signed by any Doctor.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The Onus to prove that the deceased insured had given wrong information or withheld any information, was on the petitioner.  Petitioner failed to prove the same by producing the original record.  The Bed-Head Ticket is not signed by the Doctor who had examined the petitioner.

            For the reasons states above, we uphold the order passed by the foras below and dismiss the revision petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER