Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the fora below,   Birla   Sun   Life  Insurance Company, who was opposite

-2-

party in the complaint, has filed the present petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The consumer dispute related to the non-settlement/unjustified repudiation of the claim of Rs. One lakh made by the complainant under an insurance policy, which besides having the life coverage had also accidental coverage and critical illness for Rs. 1 lakh.  Within the 10 days’ time of taking the said policy, the complainant suffered from a renal disease and had received treatment and the kidney was transplanted at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana.  In the hospital record, it was reported that the complainant was suffering from disease of renal failure/complication for last about three months but the same was corrected by issuing fresh certificate.  The claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant had suppressed the material fact in regard to the status of his health at the time of taking the policy and in particular about his renal ailment with which he was suffering and made a wrong declaration in the admission form.

Both the fora below on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence and material brought on record, repelled the

-3-

plea of the insurance company and holding them deficient in service in not settling the claim, allowed the complaint partly with a direction to the insurance company to pay the amount of Rs. One lakh with interest although the complainant had incurred much more expenditure on his treatment.  The State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Consumer Forum and dismissed the appeal. 

We have heard Mr. Meenakshi Midha, learned counsel representing the petitioner-insurance company and Mr. Manjit Singh, authorized representative of the respondent and have considered their respective submissions.  Having done so and going by the evidence and material obtaining on record at the attenuating circumstances, we are of the view that the possibility of the complainant having obtained the policy after being he was diagnosed in the case of renal failure, cannot be ruled out.  This was perhaps one view which could be taken on the strength of evidence and material brought on record but since both the fora below have taken a view which is in the interest of consumer and which cannot be totally faultered, we are of the view that in the given facts and circumstances

-4-

and the hardship faced by the complainant, we should not intervene in the orders passed by the fora below. 

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.  Half of the amount stands already deposited under the direction of this Commission.  The same shall be disbursed to the complainant and the balance shall be remitted to the complainant within a period of four weeks from today.