Aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2010 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No. 141 of 2006, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ernakulam in complaint case No. 446 of 2005.  By the said order, the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant in regard to the insurance claim of the complainant under an insurance policy taken by the husband of the complainant and had directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay the assured amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @12% thereon.  In the appeal, the State Commission going by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.C. Chacko and another vs. Chairman, LIC of India and others reportede in 2008(1) SCC 321 and subsequent decision in the case of LIC of India and others vs. T. Venkateshwaralu in civil appeal Nos. 1682 of 2004, has allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order and consequently, dismissed the complaint.

We have heard Mr. K. V. Bharathi Upadhayaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.  Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the order primarily on the ground that the deceased-insured cannot be said to have suppressed any material fact in regard to the status of his health at the time of making the proposal of taking the policy because the insured was medically examined by the doctors of the Corporation at the Branch level and Divisional Level.

We have noted down this submission only to be rejected because it has been established on record that the deceased-insured was suffering from diabetic and cirrhosis of liver and was getting treatment for the same for a long period and even before he had made a proposal form obtaining this insurance policy.  Going by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of P. C. Chacko (supra) and later affirmed in the case of Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2009 (8) SCC 316 we have no manner of doubt that the present case is squarely covered by these decisions and the insured will be deemed to have suppressed the material fact at the time of making the declaration in regard to the status of his health while obtaining the policy.  The insured of course died of Carcenoma (cancer) but that will not dilute the position in regard to the entitlement of the complainant to claim the insurance amount.  At best the complainant can seek paid up value of the policy going by the amount of premium paid by her, according to the Rules of the LIC.

In the result, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed with the observation that the LIC will consider the case of the complainant for paying back the amount which the complainant can legitimately claim going by the amount of premium paid by the deceased-insured.