There has been delay of 23 days in flying revision petition and for reasons stated in application, delay is condoned. Deceased insured Janabai Gowardhan Deokar obtained three Life Insurance Policies from petitioner-Corporation on different dates for different sums. First policy was secured on 15.03.2001 on submission of proposal form on the same date for assured value of Rs.50,000/-. Second policy was secured by deceased on 29.11.2001 on submission of proposal form on the same date for assured value of Rs.2,75,000/- and last policy was taken by assured which was effective from 13.02.2002 on submission of proposal form on 29.01.2002 for assured value of Rs.2,50,000/-. During validity or currency of policy, insured died on 01.07.2002 following heart stroke. Thereafter claim was lodged by respondent. While petitioner Insurance –Corporation accepted claim in respect of first policy that was taken on 15.03.2001, repudiated other two claims holding suppression of material facts about status of health while submitting proposal form, as deceased insured was under treatment in E.B. Hospital during the period from 11.03.2001 to 14.03.2001 and she was diagnosed Immuno Compromise Status (HIV positive). Even though first policy had commenced on 15.03.2001, after insured had allegedly taken treatment during 11.03.2001 to 14.03.2001 petitioner in their prudence accepted claim. Be that as it may after repudiation of claim, door of consumer fora was knocked when claim was resisted by Insurance-Corporation, District forum, however, on evaluation of pleadings of parties holding repudiation of claim to be valid, dismissed complaint. That finding was, however, reversed by State Commission in appeal holding no credible evidence on record about treatment of insured particularly when treatment papers were seriously disputed by respondent. It is contended on behalf of petitioner Corporation that they have made all efforts to place on record treatment papers, but since they were not available in hospital as will appear that could not be placed on record due to non-availability of record with the Hospital. Be that as it may, once genuineness of treatment papers was disputed by respondent it was open for petitioner-Corporation to put evidence of clinching nature on record to satisfy forum about bonafide of treatment shown to have been taken by the deceased. Contrary, what was put on the record was a certificate issued by Medical Officer, but no affidavit of who issued certificate was filed. Finding of State Commission in these backgrounds cannot be said to be erroneous and revision petition in the circumstances is dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER | |
