NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4291/2010

LIC OF INDIA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAMAL SISODIA & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. KAMAL MEHTA

11 Jul 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 4291 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 16/08/2010 in Appeal No. 720/2009 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)

1. LIC OF INDIA & ANR. Through Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office "Jeevan Prakash" Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Sattigudi Chowk Raigarh Chhattisgarh	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. KAMAL SISODIA & ORS. Reisdent of: Deendayal Colony, Raigarh, Tehsil Kharsia Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2. MINOR SUBHAM SISODIA, S/O. LATE SH. VIKAS SISODIA Through his Mother Smt. Rekha Sisodia, W/o. Late Sh. Vikas Sisodia, Resident of: Deendayal Colony, Raigarh, Tehsil Kharsia Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3. DR. A. KAPOO Quarter No. 14, Anathalaya Colony Raigarh Chhattisgarh	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. R. KINGONKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 11 Jul 2011

ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners-LIC was directed to pay the amount insured in view of the terms of the insurance policy. The District Consumer fora’s finding is that the previous history regarding the deceased being in a habit of drinking liquor and was being diabetic patient was not proved. Though, the State Consumer Forum observed that the proposal form was not filed, yet the State Commission also gave concurrent finding that there was no suppression of material facts while obtaining the insurance policy. The petitioner alleged that the deceased had suppressed material fact that he was regularly consuming liquor and was a diabetic patient. We find that beyond filing a copy of the case sheet of the OP Jindal Hospital & Research Centre, Raigarh, the petitioner did not place any other material on record regarding the alleged suppression of the material facts. There appears no perversity in appreciation of the record made available to the State Commission while passing of the impugned order.           Considering the scope of the revision petition, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned concurrent judgments. Revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

......................J

V. R. KINGONKAR

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER