NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2381/2010

LIC OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GULABRAO BABURAO KADAM - Opp.Party(s)

MR. U.C. MITTAL

29 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 15/02/2010 in Appeal No. 12/2002 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. LIC OF INDIA39,IST Floor, New Aslatic Building, Connaught PlaceNew DelhiDelhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. GULABRAO BABURAO KADAMR/o. Devlali Pravara, Taluka RahuriAhmedNagarMaharashtra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. U.C. MITTAL
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 29 Jul 2010
ORDER

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.

Heard counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. The revision petition has been filed against concurrent findings of two Fora below. The Insurance Co. had repudiated the claim on the ground of material suppression of fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant had suppressed the fact of having undergone angiography in the year 1993 and if the said fact had been disclosed, it would have made material difference on the decision which was taken by the Insurance Co. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was a material fact, which was suppressed by the complainant and the same has been proved with the help of a certificate dated 24.07.2009 issued by Pune Medical Foundation. First of all, we would like to point that in support of this certificate of the Pune Medical Foundation, no affidavit had been filed. The other documents including Annexure P-6 are of the year 1999. The policy in question was taken w.e.f. 28.03.1997. Secondly, the angiography which was done in the year 1993, was normal and as such it was not necessary to disclose the said fact. In case, angiography was abnormal and there were some defects in the angiography then it would be a material fact, which was required to be disclosed. We do not find that any case has been made out for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission has already modified the order of the District Forum by reducing the interest to 9% and quashing the sum of Rs.5,000/- which was awarded for mental agony. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER