KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.FIRST APPEAL. 599/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30.6.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India : APPELLANTS Sulthan Bathery Branch, Rep. by its Manager, LIC Bathery Branch, Bathery.P.O. 2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Kozhikode, Rep. by its Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, P.B.No.177, Kozhikode. (By Adv. G.S.Kalkura) vs. Jagadhamma, : RESPONDENT W/o late Gopalan Nair, Chakkungal House, Mullankolly.P.O., Pulpally. (By Ad.Dinesh Sajan) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.83/08 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim with respect to the life policy No.794379673 in the name of the life assured late Sri.C.Gopalan Nair. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the insurance claim was repudiated by the opposite party LIC of India on valid ground of suppression of material facts. It was contended that the proposor (life assured C.Gopalan Nair) failed to disclose the material facts regarding his health condition while submitting the proposal for the said policy and thereby the opposite parties justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Dr.Subash was examined on the side of the complainant as PW2. Ext.A1 photocopy of the proposal was also marked on the side of the complainant. Dr.Vighneswar Bhatt was examined as OPW1, on the side of the opposite parties. Ext.B1 to B5 documents were also marked on the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 31st July, 2009 directing the opposite party to pay insurance amount of Rs.50000/- to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the impugned order with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment. Hence the present appeal. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the oral testimony of OPW1 Dr.Vighneswar Bhatt attached to Shrisha hospital, Pulpally and B3 case sheet issued from Shrisha hospital with respect to the treatment of the life assured C.Gopalaln Nair at that hospital from 28.4.2004 onwards. Thus, he argued for the position that there was suppression of material facts by the life assured while submitting Ext.B4 proposal for the said policy. On the other hand, the learned amicuscurie who was appointed for the respondent/complainant supported the order passed by the Forum below. He relied on the testimony of PW2 and submitted that the life policy was issued to the life assured C.Gopalan Nair after undergoing medical examination conducted by the panel doctor of LIC of India. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is the widow and nominee of the life assured C.Gopalan Nair who had taken a life policy vide Policy No.794379673. Ext.B5 is the said policy insuring the life of Gopalan Nair for a sum of Rs.50000/-. The respondent/complainant is shown as the nominee of the life assured. The said policy commenced on 28.3.2006 with the date of commencement of risk as 31.3.2006. Ext.B4 is the proposal submitted by the life assured C.Gopalan Nair as proposor for the said policy. The said proposal is dated 18th March 2006 and the same is signed by the porposor Gopalan Nair with the counter signature of the LIC agent. In B4 proposal there are questions regarding the health condition of the proposor at the time of submitting the proposal for the policy. The aforesaid questionnaire was made under the heading personal history against column 11 of the proposal form . The answers given to the said questions would show that the proposor was not having any sort of ailment and he was never admitted to any hospital or Nursing Home for general check up, observation, treatment or operation and he is having good health. The aforesaid proposal was also signed by the proposor with a declaration stating that all the statements made in the proposal are true and correct and in the event of finding any of the said statement as untrue; LIC will be at liberty to rescind the contract by treating the contract as null and void and all the moneys paid in respect of that contract shall stand forfeited to the Corporation. 5. The evidence of OPW1 Dr.Vighneswar Bhatt and Ext.B3 case sheet issued by Dr.Vighneswar Bhatt would make it clear that the life assured Gopalan Nair had undergone treatment at Shirsha hospital, Pulpally from 28.4.2004 upto 1.11.2006. Ext.B3 case sheet has been proved through OPW1. The evidence of OPW1 and B3 case sheet stand unchallenged. A perusal of B3 case sheet would make it clear that the life assured Gopalan Nair has been suffering from respiratory disease from 28.4.04 till 1.11.2006. Ext.B3 case sheet would also show that the life assured had undergone treatment in Shirsha hospital, Pulpally on various occasions during the period from 28.4.2004 up to 1.11.2006. There is no reason or ground to doubt the genuineness and correctness of the entries in B3 case sheet issued from Shirsha hospital, Pulpally with respect to the treatment of the life assured Gopalan Nair. The aforesaid evidence would strengthen the case of the appellants/opposite parties that the respondent/ complainant has been suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and that for the aforesaid illness he had undergone treatment under OPW1 Dr.Vighneswar Bhatt for the period from 28.4.04 till 1.11.06. 6. Ext.B4 proposal and the answers given by the life assured to the questions under the heading personal history would make it clear that the life assured suppressed material facts with respect to his status of health as on the date of submission of the proposal . In other words, the life assured failed to disclose the material facts regarding his health condition while submitting B4 proposal. So, the appellants/opposite parties can very well repudiate the insurance claim by treating the contract of insurance with respect to the aforesaid life policy as null and void. 7. The Forum below has not considered the suppression of material facts by the life assured while submitting the proposal for policy of insurance. The mere fact that there was no nexus between the cause of death of the life assured and the fact suppressed in the proposal can not be taken as a ground to hold that there was no valid ground for repudiation of the insurance claim. Likewise, the fact that the policy was issued after medical examination conducted by the panel doctor of LIC can not be taken as a ground to hold that the LIC is prevented from repudiating the insurance claim on the ground of suppression of material facts regarding the health condition of the life assured. It is to be noted that the life assured was bound to disclose the important and essential facts regarding his health condition while submitting the proposal. It is also to be noted that the specific questions were put to the proposor regarding the status of his health. But, to the specific questions the proposor had given incorrect answers. In fact, the proposor suppressed material facts regarding his health condition. It is settled position that the insurer will be at liberty to rescind the contract of insurance, if it is found subsequently that there was suppression of material facts while submitting the proposal for the policy. It is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.C.Chacko and another vs. Chairman LIC of India and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 321 that the insurer will be at liberty rescind the contract, in the event of detection of non-disclosure of material facts while submitting the proposal for the policy. In a subsequent decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in LIC of India and others vs. T.Venkateshwarlu (Civil appeal Nos.1682/04 and 1602/04) it has been held that the judgment rendered in P.C.Chacko and another vs. chairman LIC of India and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 321 shall be strictly followed by all courts and consumer Fora in the country. In the light of the aforesaid decisions it can be held that the Forum below has gone wrong in not accepting the contention taken by the opposite parties and in finding the opposite parties deficient in rendering service. 8. The forgoing discussions and the findings thereon would make it clear that the impugned order passed by the Forum below is legally unsustainable. This State Commission is pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 31.7.09 passed by CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta in CC.83/08 is dismissed. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by Forum below is set aside. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps | 
