By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> The petitioner’s deceased husband Sri.K.K.Sreenivasan had taken a policy bearing No.774449443 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the Corporation. The petitioner was the nominee and had remitted the premium without any default. On 2004 August the deceased Sreenivasan who admitted and treated in Amritha Institute of Medical and Research Centre and died on 25/9/04. Subsequently the petitioner had applied to the Corporation with all relevant documents for the claim amount. But it was repudiated by the respondents. Later the petitioner had put another application before the Zonal Manager, Chennai, but it was also in vain. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> The Counter in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> 2. The date of the commencement of the policy is 12/1/2/03 and the premiums were paid up to 12/6/04. The date of taking the policy mentioned in the petition is not the date of commencement of the policy. It is only the date of proposal. The claim of the petitioner was repudiated on the basis of suppression of material facts and it was communicated also. In the proposal form the deceased Sreenivasan had given incorrect answers to the questions regarding personal history. In the claim form the deceased had suppressed that he was suffering from Cirrhosis of liver, with portal hypertension and had taken treatment for the same in a hospital from the certificate given by Dr.Robert P Panakkal, Amala Hospital. It is proved that the deceased was suffering from Cirrhosis of liver even on 29/5/03. It is very much prior to the date of proposal. Thus it is clear that the deceased had suppressed the information regarding his health. So the decision of the Corporation is right and legally enforceable. Hence dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are<br /> 1)Whether the petitioner is entitled for the policy amount?<br /> 2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation ?<br /> 3) Reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> 4. Evidence marked as exhibits P1 to P4 and exhibits R1to R6<br /> <br /> 5.Point No.1 According to the petitioner she is entitled for the policy benefits as per the policy conditions. But her claim was repudiated stating on unreasonable grounds. Ext. R1 is the proposal form signed by the deceased Sreenivasan and which shows that under the heading personal history he has answered all the headings as ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ to heading ’K’ only. The date of the proposal is on 12/12/03. If the husband of the petitioner affirmed on 12/12/03 that his usual state of health is good and no ailment to liver, stomach, heart, lungs etc. But as per the records it can be seen that the deceased Sreenivasan was first admitted in the Amala Hospital, Thrissur on 29/5/03 with complaints of upper GI bleed. He was found to have cirrhosis of liver with portal hypertension etc. But this fact was suppressed when he had joined in the policy. Prior to the date of proposal he was suffered for the above diseases. If the person answered the questions in Ext. R1 correctly the details of ailment will be come out. So there is suppression of material facts on the part of deceased Sreenivasan.<br /> <br /> 6. The documents disclose that the insured was aware of his suffering from liver disease at the time of making the proposal form.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst. transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 7th day of July 2008.<br />