Delay of 39 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

        Father of the complainant/respondent had obtained a Special Term Plan (Regular) Policy for a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- in which the complainant was nominee.  During the validity of the policy in question, father of the respondent died on 26.12.2010 of Acute Myocardial Infraction and Respiratory Arrest.  Respondent lodged an insurance claim with the appellant which was repudiated by the appellant on the ground of concealment of material fact that the insured was diagnosed for renal failure and put on dialysis during January 2009. 

        Being aggrieved, respondent filed the complaint before the State Commission.

        Appellant, in spite of service, did not put in appearance and was ordered to be proceeded ex parte.  State Commission, on the basis of the submissions made in the complaint duly supported by the evidence produced by the respondent which remained unrebutted and uncontroverted, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay the sum of Rs.19 lakh to the respondent with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 17.3.2011 till realization together with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

        State Commission, in its order, has observed as under :

“On receipt of it, the complainant again got issued a notice through her counsel under Ex. A14 dt. 13.2.2012 mentioning that she did not receive any repudiation letter, and denied that he was diagnosed for renal failure and put on dialysis during January, 2009. It may be stated herein that despite denial of the said fact, the insurance company did not mention as to what exactly the investigation was, and where the deceased had undergone dialysis. Obviously, knowing full well that it cannot prove the said fact no reply was given nor the matter was contested when notices were received in the complaint filed by the complainant. The insurance company intends to somehow repudiate the claim on the ground of pre-existing ailment. It did not have any evidence to controvert the medical record submitted by the complainant in this regard. Therefore, we hold that there was neither suppression of ailment nor any ground for dis-entitlement of the claim. The documentary evidence shows that he died of AMI. He was not suffering from renal failure, not there was any pre-existing ailment. The complainant being nominee entitled to the amount. Since the repudiation was unjust, the complainant is also entitled to compensation towards mental agony which we quantify at Rs. 25,000/- taking the amount into consideration. The complainant is also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a.”

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Burden to prove that the insured had suppressed the material fact regarding the pre-existing disease while taking the policy was on the appellant which the appellant failed to discharge by leading any evidence as it did not appear despite service.  Appellant also did not file the written statement/lead any evidence to prove the suppression of facts.  State Commission has rightly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent based on the submissions made in the complaint duly supported by the evidence led by the respondent.  Dismissed.