NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 5018 OF 2008
(Against the Order dated 05/09/2008 in Appeal No. 347/2008 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. LIC OF INDIA & ORS.
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. NEETA DEVI & ORS.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
MR. NIKHIL JAIN &
For the Respondent :
MR. AMBUJ AGARWAL & MR. HEMRAJ GAUR
Dated : 20 Jul 2010
ORDER
Delay of 12 days is condoned. The petitioner has come in revision against the concurrent findings of two Fora below. We have heard Ld. Counsel appearing on both sides. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner after placing reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in P.C. Chacko & Anr. Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others (2008) 1 SCC 321 and a judgement of this Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Krishan Chander Sharma (R.P. No.1935 of 1999 decided on 23.1.2006) has urged before us that it is clear case of suppression of illness which has been duly proved by the petitioner with the help of Bed Head Tickets where details have been recorded of the said previous illness. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the OP has submitted that the hospital record relating to the Bed Head Tickets has not been proved by either filing record relating to the said illness or even by affidavit of the doctor who is said to have recorded the said history. According to him, no case is made out for interference with the concurrent finding of two Fora below. Deceased, Devendra Kumar had taken insurance policy on 15.2.2003 for Rs.5,00,000/-. On 30.12.2005, he was admitted in S.M.S. Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur where he died on the same day. The District Forum recorded finding that the Bed Head Tickets where the history is recorded does not clearly mention the disease from which the complainant was suffering for past 4-5 years; that it is not mentioned in the Bed Head Tickets as to who had narrated the history recorded therein; the doctor who recorded the history of the patient in the Bed Head Tickets has neither submitted any affidavit, nor his statement was record; no evidence has been filed by the OP regarding the disease and treatment taken by complainant prior to taking up of insurance policy. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum and held that cogent and justified reasons for not admitting the Bed Head Tickets as sufficient evidence have been given by the District forum. It is further pointed out that apart from Bed Head Tickets, no other evidence was led by the OP to prove the disease and treatment taken by the deceased and not even a single document was filed at least to show as to the medicines taken by the deceased. The State Commission placed reliance on the judgement of this Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Dr. P.S. Aggarwal I (2005) CPJ 41 (NC). In this case, it was observed that the information collected from the records of Apollo hospital is not primary piece of evidence, but primary evidence would be of the doctors who recorded the information in the discharge summary and the doctor who prepared the discharge summary has not been produced. The Apex Court in P.C. Chacko & Anr. Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others (Supra) has dealt with the scope and ambit of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and has laid down that misstatement, by itself, was not material for repudiation of the policy unless the same is material in nature. However, a deliberate wrong answer given by insured having a great bearing on contract of insurance may lead to policy being vitiated in law. In so far as the judgement of this Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Krishan Chander Sharma (R.P. No.1935 of 1999 decided on 23.1.2006) (Supra) is concerned, upon which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the facts therein are distinguishable. In that case, the complainant/respondent had admitted that he was treated for allergic bronchitis and besides that claim enquiry report and certificate issued by N.C. Jindal Hospital, Hissar had also been filed and proved. It was in this set of facts, that it was held that non-filing of affidavit and/or non-examination of treating doctor is not ruinous. In the case before us, the Bed Head Tickets in which the history was recorded have not been proved by filing affidavit of the doctor who recorded the history, nor the previous alleged illness has been proved by filing affidavits of the concerned persons. OP had filed only the affidavit of Mr. M.L.Chaudhary, Manager (Legal & Residence, Estate Finance) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this revision. The revision is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent/complainant.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
