1.     This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the act’) assails order dated 04.07.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.301 of 2016 arising out of the order dated 18.02.2016, Consumer Protection District Forum, Jaipur-III, Jaipur in complaint no. 315 of 2012 (old number 936/2010).

2.     The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner’s late husband  Mr. Vimal Raj Purohit had obtained a life insurance policy for Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondent on 25.04.2013. The sanction of the policy was preceeded by a medical examination before two doctors, Dr. U.K. Gupta, and Dr. Aruna Singh, who conducted the complete medical examination. The petitioner’s husband expired suddenly on the night of 22.10.2013 due to heart failure. The insurance claim preferred by the petitioner was repudiated by the respondent stating that the Proposal Form filled in by the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) had incorrectly replied to the questions relating to his health with regard to his suffering from severe obesity and Pickwickian syndrome prior to the obtaining of the policy. The petitioner denies that the answers to the questions in the Proposal Form were incorrect and that her late husband had been in good health. He had appeared for medical examination in the presence of the agent for the respondent and it was only after being satisfied with his health parameters after medical examination that the respondent had issued a joint insurance policy on 25.04.2013. The respondent in its repudiation letter has incorrectly held the cause of the death is heart disease on the basis of treatment of the DLA at Divine Nursing Home Private Limited. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the claim be honoured.

3.     The District Forum in its order dated 18.02.2016 disallowed the complaint of the Petitioner and held as below:-

        ‘From the perusal of the medical document Exhibit D-20 submitted from the side of the Opposite Party Exhibit D-20 which has been issued by Divine Nursing Memorial Pr. Ltd. it appears that Vimal Purohit, husband of the complainant had taken admission in the aforesaid Nursing institution on 21.09.2003 for taking treatment. In the aforesaid medical document HT/Ax Resp. distress/Huge Obesity has been mentioned by way of diagnosis and in the past history huge obesity with pickwickian syndrome has been mentioned. On the basis of this medical document the statement of the Opposite parties appears to be correct that at the time of obtaining the aforesaid insurance policy husband of the complainant was suffering from huge obesity that at the time of obtaining the aforesaid insurance policy husband of the complainant was suffering from huge obesity with pickwickian syndrome because the insurance policy in question has been issued to the husband of the complainant on 25/04/2003. Thereafter after about 5 months according to Exhibit D-20 the complainant had taken treatment from Divine Nursing Memorial Pr. Ltd., wherein in the past history there is mention of huge obesity with pickwickian syndrome. From this situation it is clear that husband of the complainant was suffering from huge obesity with pickwickian syndrome since prior to taking the insurance policy, because such a health related condition cannot appear within four months. Besides this examination report concerning the signatures of the insurance holder on the documents concerning sickness also supports the arguments of the opposite parties. The initials which have been put by the insured on own life proposal from Annexure-1 they have been found to be different according to the report of handwriting expert Smt. Renu Kumar to be different from the disputed signatures. According to the aforesaid report the disputed signatures Q-1, Q-5 and Q-6 have been put in by three different persons, which have been shown to have been done by standard “S” signatures of Shri Vimal Raj Purohit rather the disputed initials Q-1 to Q-8 have been done by four different persons.

        In the light of the aforesaid evidence we find that the husband of the complainant has given wrong answers in the proposal form for obtaining the aforesaid insurance policy by concealing the substantive facts. At the time of getting the aforesaid insurance policy husband of the complainant was involved with huge obesity and pickwickian syndrome. In these circumstances obtaining the aforesaid insurance policy by concealing the substantive facts regarding health is very well apparent. Here it is pertinent to mention that in connection with issue of the aforesaid insurance policy in an incorrect manner to the husband of the complainant there has been important contribution to the concerned agent of the opposite party again whom according to the statement of the opposite party suitable action has been taken.

        On the basis of the above discussion we find that in connection with the death of the husband of the complainant in the aforesaid circumstances the opposite party insurance company has not committed in deficiency in service in repudiating the aforesaid claim. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.”              

            (Emphasis added)

4.     The State Commission in its order dated 04.07.2017 disallowed the appeal on the grounds that:-

     “There is no dispute about the fact that on 15.03.2003 proposal form was filled and policy was issued. On 22.10.2003 the husband of the appellant died and claim was repudiated on the ground that material facts were suppressed and the insured was suffering from huge obesity with pickwickian syndrome. Death certificate Ex.3 speaks that the insured died of cardio respiratory failure. His consultation sheet dated 21.09.2003 shows that he is patient of COPD and huge obesity and pickwickian syndrome and due to obesity his pancreas and prostate were not visible and report of Ranbaxy dated 01.10.2003 shows that he was a patient of HIV positive which clearly shows that material facts as regard to pre-existing disease were suppressed at the time of filling of the proposal form. Further this may also be noted that agent for the said policy was related to the deceased as admitted by the appellant herself vide Anx. 13 and insurance company after due procedure has terminated the agency of agent Rajneesh Pareek which also give strength to the contention of the respondent.

     The respondent has further pointed out that insured himself has not presented before the concerned doctor and to support this contention expert opinion as regard to handwriting expert is submitted which shows that the signatures written before the doctor are not similar to the signatures of the deceased”.

(Emphasis added)

5.     The Petitioner has approached this Commission challenging the order of the State Commission on the ground that impugned orders of the State Commission and the order of the District Forum dated 23.10.2006 which had disallowed the appeal and complaint of the petitioner are erroneous as they have disregarded the fact that there was a medical examination prior to the grant of policy. It is stated that the State Commission had in appeal No.2092 of 2006 vide order dated 21.05.2010 remanded the order dated 31.03.2004 of the District Forum with directions to decide the matter a fresh. However, the instant Revision Petition relates to order dated 04.07.2017 of the State Commission arising out of order dated 18.02.2016 of the District Forum. The Petitioner has not brought on record nor argued on the previous orders of the District Forum or the State Commission.

6.     The material on record is clear that the respondent has repudiated the claim on the ground that the DLA had concealed material facts pertaining to his medical condition of severe obesity and Pickwickian Syndrome in the proposal form and had not appeared personally for the medical examination as proved by the handwriting expert who analysed his signature on the Form and signatures on the medical examination report, which fact has not been challenged by the petitioner by way any evidence. In view of this admission by the Petitioner, and the fact that material evidence had not been disclosed which, under the contract of insurance mandates uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith), the petitioner’s claim cannot be considered.

7.     The revisional jurisdiction of this commission under section 21 where both the lower consumer fora arrive at concurrent findings of facts are limited as held in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., in Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

 8.    In this matter also, in view of the concurrent finding of facts by the lower fora the present revision petition is attempt to re-agitate the same issues. There is no evidence of jurisdictional error or material irregularities brought out by the complainant to warrant any interference by this Commission in the matter. The Revision Petition is liable to fail on this ground.

9.     In view of the fore-going, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Revision Petition is dismissed as having no merits. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed off along with this order.