Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Shevata widow of Sanjeev Kumar against opposite parties i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Sr. Divisional Manager and others seeking direction against the opposite parties for settlement of her life insurance claim of Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith instalments on account of death of husband life assured and for monetary compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. <br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint are tat her husband life assured Sanjeev Kumar got services of opposite parties by taking their policy namely Jiwan plus vide policy No. 132214902 for sum insured of Rs.2,50,000/- and paid total sum of Rs.75000/- in three different instalments of Rs.25000/- each. As per the policy , opposite party LIC was liable to pay Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith the instalments already paid in the event of death of life insured. It is further averred that unfortunately her husband died on 5/8/2007 due to tongue cancer during the pendency of the policy. but her just and bonefide insurance claim was repudiated by the opposite party LIC vide their letter dated 13.3.2008 on the ground that deceased had illegally withheld correct information about his state of health at the time of effecting the insurance and that he was suffering from Asthma for which he consulted the medical man and had taken treatment in the hospital. The impunged repudiation of her insurance claim by the opposite party LIC is illegal, null and void and unjustified because her husband had never consulted medical man and had taken treatment from any hospital for Asthma ailment. Moreover, the insured died during the period of policy due to tongue cancer whereas the claim was repudiated on the ground that the deceased had suppressed his aliment of Asthma. Asthma and tongue cancer ( cause of death ) has no nexus and as such repudiation is totally unjustified and it amounts to deficiency in service against which she is entitled to the reliefs claimed. <br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared, controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted her claim. Certain preliminary objections have been raised that present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has concealed material facts and that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint as intricacies of law and facts are involved in this complaint. On merits factum of insurance of Sanjeev Kumar life insured with the opposite parties for Rs.2.50 Lac is not disputed and was entitled to benefits under the plan of the policy. Opposite party LIC has however, justified repudiation of insurance claim of the complainant as legal and valid because the life insured had withheld and suppressed material facts regarding state of health at the time of enetering into the contract of insurance with the opposite parties as he was suffering from tongue cancer and was on inhaler due to his chronic smoking habit . Had the insured disclosed the same to the opposite party LIC at the time of taking proposal, the underwriting decision would have been otherwise. The insured fully knew about his state of health and underperformed various tests for his disease from different hospitals and laboratories which he did not disclose at the time of insurance. Moreover, it is evident from the record of different hospitals i.e. Patel hospital, Jalandhar,Sardana Labs, Jalandhar, Tata Memorial hospital, Mumbai and Govt. hospital PHC Bholath that he was diagnosed and treated for tongue cancer but that he submitted false answer to question No.11 in the proposal form about his state of health and was guilty of material concealment of fact of his ailment. Moreover, medical treatment record was got verified by the opposite party LIC from where insured had got his medical treatment and medical tests on different levels of time. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties so as to entitle the complainant to insurance claim. <br /> 4. In support of her version complainant has produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.C1 to C17.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R10. <br /> 6. we have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that impunged repudiation letter Ex.C7 dated 13/3/2008 of her insurance claim for Rs.2,50,000/- is illegal and unjustified and contrary to the terms of the insurance policy dated 24/6/2006 Ex.R3 inasmuch as Insurance Company has miserably failed to establish charge of suppression or material concealment of alleged pre-existing disease of Sanjeev Kumar insured and moreso the insured had died of tongue cancer and not of Asthma which has no nexus with his death. On the other hand it has been counter-argued by learned counsel for the opposite parties that false answers in the proposal form Ex.R2 by the insured regarding his state of health and duly proved by certificates of medical treatment vide Ex.C4 of Patel Hospital, Jalandhar and Sardana Labs, Jalandhar Ex.C3 and of Tata Memorial hospital, Mumbai Ex.C5 and medical attendant certificate of Tata Memorial hospital in form No.3784 Ex.R8 and certificate of hospital treatment in form No.3816 Ex.R9 disentitles complainant to the insurance claim as he was suffering from Asthma and was chronic chain smoker which the insured had conscious knowledge of it and he died within two years of commencement of insurance policy.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. No doubt, under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, policy can be called in question within period of two years from the date on which it was effected on the ground that statement leading to the insured of the policy was inaccurate or false but if the policy is questioned after period of two years, Insurance Company can repudiate the policy if it shows that such statement was on material matter or insured suppressed fact which it was material to disclose or that it was fraudulently made by the policy holder and that policy holder knew at the time of making it that statement was false or that it suppressed fact which it was material to disclose.<br /> 8. Now adverting to the facts and evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective pleas, this fact is not disputed that Sanjeev Kumar was insured with the opposite parties LIC for sum insured of Rs.2,50,000/- vide insurance policy dated 24/6/2006 on payment of premium of Rs.25000/- but later on he expired on 5/8/2007 vide death certificate Ex.C6 leaving behind complainant as his widow. In the column NO.11 clauses a, b, c regarding state of health, he categorically stated that he had not been suffering from any ailment pertaining to heart, Liver, Brain, Kidney etc. though statement of Sanjeev Kumar ( now deceased ) is sought to be discredited by placing on record form No.3784 medical attendant certificate Ex.R8 issued by Tata Memorial hospital, Mumbai and form No.3816 certificate of hospital treatment Ex.R9 and also Certificate of medical treatment issued by Patel hospital, Jalandhar vide Ex.C4 and hospital treatment of Tata Memorial hospital Ex.C5 and certificate of hospital treatment of Sardana Labs Ex.C3. There is also statement of complainant Shevata that her husband had never consulted medical man nor taken treatment from any hospital for alleged ailment of Asthma. He died during the subsistence of the policy due to tongue cancer. No doubt opposite party LIC repudiated the insurance claim vide letter Ex.C7 dated 13/3/2008 on the ground that answer to the question in column No.11 by the insured was false because he was suffering from Asthma for which he consulted medical man and as such he had deliberately given incorrect statement regarding his health at the time of effecting insurance and the declaration containing in the proposal form. Surprisingly opposite party lIC had not been able to establish charge of alleged pre-existing disease of his tongue cancer at the time of commencement of the policy or prior to it. We have gone through the medical records of Patel hospital and that of Sardana Labs Ex.C3, and also of Tata Memorial hospital Ex.C5 which pertained to the disease of tongue cancer of the insured which was detected one month prior as per medical attendant certificate of Tata Memorail hospital, Mumbai and also vide certificate of hospital treatment Ex.R9 though history of Asthma was reported since 2-3 years when he was discharged from Tata Memorial hospital on 18/1/2007 vide Ex.R9. Therefore, there was no nexus or proximate cause of death of Sanjeev Kumar insured with Asthma ailment but that he died on account of tongue cancer. Reliance has been rightly placed upon by learned counsel for the complainant upon the case reported as LIC vs. Kamla Devi Gupta 2007 (II) CPC 473 in which on the facts it was clearly held that insured died due to cancer and the disease like bronchitis and T.B. for which treatment was taken for about 4-5 years ago were not disclosed due to which claim was repudiated-Held-concealment of such disease cannot be made ground of repudiation of claim as death of insured was caused by cancer.. Likewise in another case reported as LIC of India vs. Tejalben Kananbhai Patel 2007 (1) CPC 429 wherein on the facts it was clearly held by HOn'ble National Commission that insured having LIC policy remained in hospital for five days for treatment of fever and throat pain. He died of massive heart attack after eight months-Held that repudiation of claim for suppression of material disease unjustified because alleged ailment was not cause of death. In another case of Hon'ble State Commission reported as LIC of India vs. Smt.Kulwant Kumari 2006 (2) CPC 495 where on the facts it was held that policy had elapsed due to non payment of premium and it was revived after payment of premium and permission-Assured died of heart attack within two years of revival of policy. Held that repudiation of claim on the ground that assured was suffering from diabetes is not justified because there is no nexus of diabetes disease and cause of death ( heart failure ). Therefore, even the revival of the policy vide Ex.R2, R4, R6 and C10 will not militate against the insurance claim of the complainant because death of the insured was not related to alleged Asthma ailment but has the direct nexus with tongue cancer. The Insurance Company has miserably failed to establish either from the treating doctor accompanied with any past medical record of the disease that he was ever diagnosed and medically treated as such for the cancer disease either prior or at the time of commencement of the insurance policy. We cannot draw any adverse inference from derivative observation in column No.7 of certificate of hospital treatment because the deceased had never been treated by Dr.P.Chatuvedi of Tata Memorial hospital, Mumbai for treatment of Carcinoma of tongue prior or at the time of commencement of insurance policy. Learned counsel for the opposite party LIC has no doubt referred to case reported as LIC of India vs. Krishan Chand Sharma revision petition NO.1935 of 1999 and another case of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as P.C Checko & Anr. vs. LIC of India in civil appeal No.5322 of 2007. The facts of the above case are distinguishable inasmuch as it was established that he had undergone operation of Adenoma Thyroid even four years prior to date of proposal made by him and that he suppressed this fact prior to obtaining of insurance policy. Same is the case of LIC vs. K.C. Sharma ( Supra) in which evidence established pre-eisting disease of the insured on inquiry from the hospital record prior to the commencement of the insurance policy. In another case of Hon'ble State Commission reported as LIC vs. Ranjit Kaur in appeal NO.1/2004 relied upon by counsel for the Insurance Company, suppression and material concealment of same disease leading to death and also renewal of the policy and subsequent concealment of same disease led to repudiation of insurance claim and the same was upheld because of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, proposal form and also declarati8on which is not in the present case.. Therefore, we hold that there was no justification for repudiation of insurance claim of the complainant.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint and order for payment of insurance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till realisation and further award Rs.7000/- towards monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and cost of litigation payable by the opposite parties within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced ( Gulshan Prashar ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 3.11.2008 Member President.