This revision by the complainant is directed against the order dated 7.9.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula  allowing appeal against the order dated  16.4.2008 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the LIC/opposite party/respondent to pay amount of Rs.15 lakhs alongwith other benefits and cost to the petitioner.    

          Dilbagh Singh, husband of the petitioner had taken policy bearing No. 174575000 dated 28.5.2005 for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs from the respondent/LIC. He died due to heart attack on 17.1.2006. On claim not being settled the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by the respondent/LIC. During the pendency of complaint, the respondent repudiated the claim by the letter dated 31.3.2008 on ground of the life assured having given wrong answers to question no. 11 of the proposal form in regard to his state of health. In the written version it was alleged that the life assured was a drug addict; was treated at Nasha Mukti Centre, Gurgaon and Mundka, Delhi; was employed as a driver with Delhi Transport Corporation and was dismissed from service by the Corporation while material fact was withheld in answer to question no. 11 of the proposal form.

          Submission advanced by Sh. J.B. Mudgil for the petitioner was that the life assured had died due to heart attack. There was no nexus between cause of death and his taking the drugs. Assuming that he was a drug addict what is stated in Ex. R-4, according to him is not based on any evidence. On the other hand, Shri Buddya Ranganadhan for the respondent - LIC supported the order of the State Commission. Reliance was also placed on the decision in P.C. Chacko and another vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (2008) I SCC 321 and the order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1682 of 2004, LIC of India & Others vs. T. Venkateshwarlu. Despite the order dated 11.5.2010, the petitioner has not filed the investigation report which was stated to be other than Ex. R-4 referred to in the order of State Commission. Order of the State Commission notices the answers given by the life assured to question No. 11  of the proposal form. In response to the questions No. 11 (h) (ii) and (iii) - Does the proposer use or have ever used narcotics or any other drugs, the answer given was NO. Order of the District Forum would show that in addition to tendering of affidavit of the official by respondent - LIC the report Ex. R-4 was also tendered in evidence.  Presumably, report Ex.R-4 was connected in the affidavit Ex. R1. In the report Ex. R-4 against column No. 8, it is stated that life assured was a drug addict having habit of taking smack for the last 5 - 6 years. Deponent of the said affidavit was not subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner. Affidavit and said statement in regard to life assured’s being drug addict for the last 5 – 6 years, thus, go unrebutted. In P.C. Chacko’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that repudiation of claim by the insurer was justified in case of mis-statement on a material fact being made by the life assured at the time of purchase of policy. Non-disclosure of taking of drug for the last 5 – 6 years by the life assured was a material fact, which he had deliberately suppressed in the proposal form. State Commission was, thus, fully justified in passing the order under challenge. There is no illegality or jurisdictional  error  in  that  order warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.  No order as to cost.