PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. This is a case of suppression of disease. The petitioner/complainant Arun Gupta got the Insurance Policy for Rs. 5,00,000/- on 25.05.2007. He stated at the time of obtaining the Insurance Company that he was having chest pain on 09.05.2007. Subsequently, he stated that there was no chest pain but only “Ghabrahat”, “Nervousness” and “Breathlessness”. He stated that he was not suffering from any other ailment. In the proposal form, Exhibit R-10, he gave all the answers in negative. Ex. R-12 is the discharge summary of Sadbhavna Medicdal and Heart Institute. According to which the complainant was admitted on 10.05.2007 and was discharged on 13.05.2007. Under the head of final diagnosis, it was mentioned, “Coronary Artery Disease, Anterior Myocardial Infarction (Thrombolysed) Significant LAD *80-85%). As per Colour Doppler – Echocardiography on May 11, 2006, Ex.R-14 , the impression was – Coronary Artery Disease; LV APICO Spetel Hypokineisa; LVEF-45%. 2. Ex. R-15 is the discharge slip from Fortis Hospital, Mohali and some medicines were prescsribed. As per document R-19 Dated 20.07.2007, Procedure: PTCA+stent to LAD was done at Fortis Hospital and under the head “Final Result”, ‘Successful PTCA + stent LAD’ was mentioned, He was discharged on 22.07.2007 vide Ex. R-21 and under the head “Resume of History” also shows that the appellant was suffering from May 2007 onwards. 3. Affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Dhull, Manager (Legal) Ex. R-1, and documents R-2 to R-30 were filed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that affidavit of the doctors were not filed on the record. This was written by the representative of the respondent. Again the petitioner singed the blank papers. He was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. 5. All these arguments lack conviction. Law will assume that he signed the papers with open eyes after reading and understanding each term and provision. The representative of the Insurance Company has filed an affidavit in support of his case. No counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner never challenged these reports. He did not rebut the evidence by filing his own affidavit denying all these certificates and his admission in the hospitals. How can a representative of the respondent can have access to the record of hospitals. Our national character is at the lowest ebb and most of us have no qualms in telling lies. See the Law laid down in the case of Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in IV (2009) CPJ 8 (SC). 6. The Revision Petition is without merit and the same is dismissed. | 
