Delay of 24 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), the petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum.

Shortly stated, the facts are that one, Gajender Singh, brother of the complainant/respondent, had obtained a life insurance policy from the petitioner on 28.7.2001 for a sum of Rs.1 lakh.  He died on 8.5.2004 due to Tuberculosis.  Complainant lodged his claim before the insurance company which repudiated the same on the ground that the deceased, at the time of taking the policy, had suppressed some material facts and declared his period of service as 15 years whereas he had been working only for 4 months.  Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum, vide its order dated 14.12.2005 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the insured amount of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent with all the benefits and pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of rejection of the claim till realization.  Costs of Rs.500/- were also imposed.

Aggrieved by this, petitioner preferred appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  Counsel for the petitioner, on 21.7.2009, raised the contention that the medical check-up of the insured was not conducted as he had stated in the proposal form that he had been employed for 15 years.  Had the insurance company known that the insured had worked only for 4 months, his medical examination would have been conducted.  He sought time to put on record the instructions to the effect that in case of an employee having worked for less than one year, medical examination was necessary.  Instructions have been put on record.  This very contention had been raised before the State Commission as well.  State Commission has rejected the same on a number of grounds including that the proposal form had been filled in by the agent and not by the insured and the insured had not signed it.  Moreover, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of the petitioner had examined the insured twice and certified on that the insured was hale and hearty and was not suffering from any disease.

We have gone through the instructions.  Petitioner has relied upon the following part of the instructions :

“NON-MEDICAL (SPECIAL) BUSINESS

To Persons employed with length of service not less than one year in

i.                    Government and Quasi Government Offices

ii.                  Schools, Hospitals etc run by Government/Quasi Government

iii.                State Corporations, Industrial undertakings and reputed commercial firms

iv.               Other commercial and industrial undertakings, private schools, colleges, etc.

Undertakings operating for a minimum period of 3 years prior to the date of proposal.”

A perusal of the same would show that it has nowhere been stated that a person having less than one-year service was required to be medically examined.  Moreover, in this case, the insured was examined by the CMO who found that the insured was not suffering from any disease or physical disability.  CMO had observed in his report that the insured was not ineligible or incompetent to be appointed in the Rajasthan Roadways. 

Counsel for the petitioner has not shown us any instructions specifically stating that the persons who had been employed for more than one year did not required medical examination.

We agree with the finding recorded by the fora below that the proposal form in which it was stated that the insured had been working for 15 years had been filled in by the agent and not by the insured and the insured had not signed the same.  This is a finding of fact which does not require any interference in revisional jurisdiction.  Dismissed.