Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Complainant/respondent’s son obtained two life insurance polices of Rs.2 Lacs and Rs.1 Lac, respectively.  Deceased paid the premium regularly.  Unfortunately, the insured died on 24.2.2004 due

-2-

to sudden breathlessness.  Claim was filed along with all necessary documents with the petitioner.  Petitioner repudiated the same on 27.12.2004 on the ground that there was suppression of material facts while taking the policies.  Thus, being aggrieved respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. 

          District Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the insured amount within four weeks, failing which the said amount was to bear interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of payment.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded as costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal bfore the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 

From the perusal of the orders passed by the fora below and the pleadings of parties, it is seen that the insurance company had produced a Certificate issued by the hospital to show that the insured had taken treatment for Renel Colic from 13.9.2002 to 15.9.2002.  The insurance company did not file the affidavit of the doctor who had treated the insured in support of the certificate produced by it.  The

-3-

fora below have held that in the absence of affidavit of the doctor, who had treated the assured, the certificate produced by the petitioner to show that the deceased had taken treatment in the hospital from 13.9.2002 to 15.9.2002, remained unproved.  Production of document is one thing and proof of document is another.  Petitioner has produced the certificate but failed to prove the same by leading evidence in support of it.  In the absence of affidavit of the doctor, who had treated the insured or issued the certificate, the certificate produced by the petitioner could not be taken to have been duly proved.  No reliance can be placed on the certificate produced by the petitioner in the absence of formal proof.  The fora below have rightly discarded the certificate produced by the petitioner.  There is no other evidence on record to show that the assured had suppressed the material facts.  No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.  Dismissed.  No costs.