ORAL ORDER

PER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGAONKAR

All these revision petitions are being disposed of by common order in as much as they arise out of identical set of circumstances and common questions of facts and law are involved.

2.      The revision petitions are directed against concurrent findings of the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission.  The deceased had obtained two insurance policies of Rs. 1 lakh each and third policy of Rs.50,000/- for period between 28^th December, 1988 to 28^th December,  2018.     These   policies   were   of    double    benefit scheme, giving benefit to the nominees or the legal representatives, in case of occurrence of the death due to accident. The assured was involved in an accident as was goaded by a bullock on 2^nd June, 1999.  He died on the same day as a result of such accidental injuries caused to him.  The legal representatives later on claimed the amounts assured under the three policies.   The main contention of the petitioner (LIC) was that the assured had concealed the fact that about 2-3 years prior of issuance of the policies, he had been injured on account of road accident.  It was the contention of the petitioner that during course of investigation such fact was revealed and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased were not entitled to claim the amounts as assured under the three policies.  The District Consumer Forum held that the fact about any material suppression by the assured was not duly proved in as much as concerned doctor by name Dr. P.K. Bambhrolia had not filed in the affidavit on record.  It has also been held that there was no “material suppression” made by the assured and there was no material to locate as to what kind of accidental injury was sustained by him prior to about 2-3 years of the death.  The District Consume Forum, therefore, allowed three separate complaints filed by the legal representatives of the assured.  On findings of facts, the State Commission rendered concurrent findings and agreed with the District Consumer Forum.

3.      Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner (LIC), it is amply clear that no substantial question of law is involved in these petitions.  The jurisdiction of revisional court is limited.  Unless there is perversity in the findings of the fora below or findings are without any material on record or that there was a substantial error while applying the law, the revisional court will not entertain the revision petition only because there is some scope for re-appreciation of the facts.  Keeping at back of mind the settled legal principle, it may be gathered from the record that the investigating agency came across the so-called fact that Dr. P.K. Bambhrolia had examined assured prior to about 5 years of the death. There is no medical record to substantiate the fact that Dr. P.K. Bambhrolia had came across any physical and serious injury which could have contributed to the death of the assured after five years, when he was accidentally injured due to piercing of horns in his body, by a bullock.  That apart, the report of the investigation was not placed on record before the State Commission.  The State Commission has observed: “Report prepared by the investigator of insurance company is not presented on record.  Dr. Bambhrolia’s affidavit is also not presented on record.”

4.      In my opinion, present three revision petitions are filed without there being any substantial question of law involved and there appears no perversity committed by the Foras below while reaching the findings that the revision petitioner failed to prove any suppression of “material fact”.  It may be stated that suppression by the assured must be in respect of “material fact” which has some nexus with cause of death and it cannot be on mere suppression of insignificant fact that the liability under the insurance policies may be repudiated.  Considering all the relevant aspects, the revision petitions are disposed of as dismissed in limine.