Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/765/2015

Trilok Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh. Shiv Prasad Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tata A.I.G. Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

Padam Chand Jain

01 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 765 /2015

 

Trilok Kumar Sharma s/o Late Shiv Prasad Sharma r/o Ward No.15 Unique Shine Children's Academy, Opp. Krishi Mandi,Govind Nagar, Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur.

Vs.

 

Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through Managing Director regd.office 6^th floor, Penansula Towers, Penansula Corporate Park, Ganpatrai Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai & ors.

 

Date of Order 1.02.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr.Padam Chand Jain counsel for the appellant

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 3^rd dated 22.5.2015 whereby the claim of the appellant has been denied by the court below on the ground that material facts have not been disclosed at the time of taking the insurance policy.

 

The contention of the appellant is that Ex. R 1 and R 2 cannot be relied upon to reach at a conclusion that father of the appellant was suffering from Cancer as Ex. R 2 is not signed one and in Ex. R 1 there is no mention of the fact that the deceased was suffering from Cancer and his further contention is that he has not been given any chance to rebut Ex. 6, 7 & 8. The contention of the appellant is that insured has not given any false answer and his claim has wrongly been dismissed.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order as well as the photo copies of the documents submitted before the court below.

 

It is not in dispute that Shiv Prasad was insured with the

3

 

respondents. The proposal form was filled on 9.7.2009 and on 30.8.2009 i.e.after 20 days the insured died. Hence, claim has been filed which was denied on the ground that material facts have not been disclosed in the proposal form and the contention of the Insurance Company was that the deceased was suffering from Cancer since 2009 and he has been investigated at Sri Ganga Ram Hospital and documents Ex. R 6 & 7 have been submitted.

 

It is true that Ex. R 2 is not signed by the concerned doctor but in support of Ex. R 2 there is other document Ex. R 7 where on the same registration number, name of the insured deceased has been entered with his address. Hence, it cannot be said that Ex. R 2 is not related to the deceased insured and there is specific finding that he had been diagnosed positive cancer. Meaning thereby before taking insurance policy he was suffering from Cancer and he died after 20 days of the insurance. Thus, it is a clear case of suppression of facts and rightly been denied by the Insurance Company as well as by the court below.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he has not been given opportunity to rebut Ex. R 6 to 8. It is true that after

4

 

hearing partial arguments, these documents were submitted alongwith the application on 29.4.2015 when counsel of the appellant was also present and next date was given for final arguments as well as for argument on the application. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 22.5.2015 arguments were heard on application as well as on the complaint and complaint has been rejected. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that he has not been given any chance to rebut Ex. R 6 to 8. After 29.4.2015 he was having opportunity to rebut these documents but he has not availed the opportunity and even on 22.5.2015 he has not prayed before the court that he want to rebut these documents. Hence, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable.

 

In the light of above, there is no fault in the findings and reasonings of the court below and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm