This order shall dispose of both the revision petitions as the  facts are similar and the point of law involved is the same.  Facts are being taken from revision petition 1408/2007.

-2-

       Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum.

       Petitioner’s mother had obtained an insurance policy on 15.03.1991 from the respondent insurance company under Double Benefit Scheme.  She died on 05.09.1998.  Petitioner being her nominee lodged the claim with the respondent insurance company, which was repudiated by the respondent on the ground that the deceased was suffering from many pre-existing diseases like diabetes, hypertension and breathlessness etc., which were suppressed at the time of taking the policy.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

       District Forum allowed the compliant partly and directed the petitioner to pay the insured sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and costs.

       Respondent being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission allowed the appeal relying upon the Bed Head Ticket of Indraprastha Apollo Hospital wherein it was stated that the deceased was suffering from diabetes, hypertension and breathlessness for the last 12-15 years.  The State

-3-

Commission came to the conclusion that the insured had suppressed material facts while taking the policy; that the insured was guilty of suppression of material facts as she failed to disclose that she was suffering from hypertension and diabetes.  Order of the District Forum was reversed and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

       Counsel for the petitioner relying upon Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1983 contends that the insured was debarred from calling in question the policy on the ground that the statement made in the proposal or in any report of a medical officer, or referee, or friend of the insured, or in any other document leading to the issue of the policy, was inaccurate or false, unless the insurer shows that such statement was on a material matter or suppressed facts which it was material to disclose and that it was fraudulently made by the policy‑holder and that the policy‑holder knew at the time of making it that the statement was false or that it suppressed facts which were material to disclose. 

       In the present case, the policy was taken in the year 1991 whereas the insured died in the year 1998.  Two years from the

-4-

taking of the policy had already expired.  Respondent after the expiry of two years of taking of the policy could not call upon in question the policy on the ground that the statement made in the proposal for insurance was false or inaccurate without showing that insured suppressed the fact which were material to disclose and that it was made fraudulently.  Respondent in the Written Statement has nowhere taken the stand that the insured did not disclose the fact regarding her illness or that the statement was made fraudulently.  Respondent also did not lead any evidence to show that the insured was aware of the fact that she was suffering from blood pressure or diabetes at the time of taking the policy.  In the case history of the hospital, it was reported that the deceased was suffering from diabetes for the last 12-15 years but nowhere it has come on the record that she knew that she was suffering from blood pressure or diabetes prior to the taking of the policy. 

       In our considered view, the State Commission has erred in reversing the order passed by the District Forum.

-5-

       For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed.  Order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.

       Respondent is directed to pay the amount to the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the District Forum within four weeks from today after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid.