The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 22.03.2017, passed  by  the  A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), whereby the Appeals preferred by the Petitioners and the Complainant/ Respondent herein against the order dated 24.06.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) have been dismissed.

2.       We have heard Mr. S. Pramod Kumar, learned Counsel  and Mr. M. Hari Babu, learned Counsel for the Complainant/ Respondent and perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

3.       One Smt. D. Narayanamma, mother of the Complainant took a Life Insurance Policy from the Petitioner for an assured sum of ₹16,00,000/- on payment of premium of ₹1,19,940/-. The term of the Policy was 14 years from 05.02.2013 to 05.02.2027 and the risks commenced from 05.02.2013. The Policy was issued on the basis of the Proposal Form dated 19.01.2013. The life assured died on 21.09.2013 allegedly due to snake bit. The Complainant being a son and nominee of the insured gave intimation of death and claimed the insurance amount duly complying with the formalities. The claim was investigated by the Petitioners as it was an early claim, the insured having died within 7 months from the date of proposal. In an investigation it was revealed that  the insured was holding several other policies, but the same were not disclosed  in the Proposal Form, therefore the Claim was repudiated vide litter dated 14.03.2014.

4.       The Complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking direction to the Petitioner herein to pay  the assured  sum of ₹16,00,000/-  with interest @ 12% p.a. together with compensation of ₹1,00,000/- and cost of ₹50,000/-, which was allowed by the District forum vide order dated 24.06.2016. The District Forum while allowing the Complaint directed the Petitioner to pay the sum assured of ₹16,00,000/-, compensation of ₹5,000/- and costs of ₹1,000/-. The State Commission upheld the order District Forum.

5.       Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the insured had several other policies, which were not disclosed and therefore the Petitioner was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground of not disclosing all the material facts while filing the Proposal Form. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant/ Respondent, however, submitted that there was no requirement in the Proposal Form to give the details of other Insurance Policies, except the medical insurance policies taken by the insured and/ or the insurance policies taken from the Petitioner. He invited out attention to page 71 of the  Paper Book, which is part of the Proposal Form submitted by the insured. As per Clause 17 of the Proposal Form, the insured is required to give the details of previous insurance held/ currently applied with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance  Company/ other medical insurance policies, if any. So the requirements was to give the previous insurance policies held/ currently applied with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company, i.e., the Petitioner and other Medical Insurance Policies, if any.

6.       According to the Complainant/ Respondent, the insured did not have any other medical insurance policy, except the Insurance Policy in question. Therefore, there was no concealment or suppression of any fact.

7.       The findings recorded by the District Forum as also the State Commission in our considered opinion is based on correct appreciation of Clause 17 of the Proposal Form and does not suffer from any illegality. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.