NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2778/2010

LIC OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DECEASED SH. DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL'S - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SUDHIR KUMAR GUPTA

11 Apr 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2778 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 11/12/2009 in Appeal No. 588/2002 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. LIC OF INDIA
Divisional Office, Navapara
Bhavnagar
Gujarat
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. DECEASED SH. DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL'S
Residing at Village-Bekdi, Vaya-Shiho
Bhavnagar
Gujarat
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. SUDHIR KUMAR GUPTA
For the Respondent :
Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate
(Amicus Curiae)

Dated : 11 Apr 2011
ORDER

 

PER MR.JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMEBR

Delay condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the Respondent/Complainant  Smt. Asmitaben Dhirubhai Maniya.  The sum of Rs.5000/-  already deposited by the Petitioner in terms of order dated 9.11.2010 be sent by demand  draft by the Registry to the Respondent /Complainant. 

Heard Counsel for the parties on merits for final disposal. The Counsel for the parties had already been informed that the matter may be finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted before us that  Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel-insured, husband of the Complainant had been  examined by Dr. Y.U. Parikh MD of Sanjeevni Hospital on 28.8.2000 and certificate of treatment marked 10/1 shows that the insured Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, husband of the Complainant was suffering from blood cancer. He also relies upon certificate of  treatment marked  10/2 given by Dr. Prajapati, MD  wherein it is stated  that the deceased Dhirubhai had “Anemia due to bone marrow suppression” and that he was suffering from the said ailment since last 8 months.  He also points out that the insured  Dhirubhai had filled up the proposal form on 9.10.2010 wherein he had suppressed the fact of his illness, namely, cancer and the State Commission  has erroneously held that the suppression was not material in case of snake bite.  Accordingly, the State Commission allowed the claim of the life assured.  The facts pointed out by Counsel for the Petitioner had been taken into consideration by the District  Forum while recording findings that it was a case of suppression of facts in as much as the insured was aware of the fact that he was suffering from cancer prior to the filling up of the proposal form.  We also find that the District Forum had taken into consideration provisions of  Section 45 of the Insurance Company and had dismissed the complaint on the ground of suppression of facts.  However, the State Commission, in our opinion had erroneously held that the suppression was not material in the case since life assured had died from snake bite and allowed the appeal.  As such, the revision is hereby allowed setting  aside the order  of the State Commission.  The order of the District Forum is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

 

 
......................J
R.K. BATTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
ANUPAM DASGUPTA
MEMBER

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.