SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is a complaint seeking realization of Insurance claim from the opp.parties, compensation, costs etc. The averment in the complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainants wife Valsala Kumary was an employee of Syndicate Bank, Panaveli Branch. The 1st opp.party was a colleague of the said Valsala Kumari. The1st opp.party was also an agent and service consultant of 2nd opp.party. The 1st opp.partycanvassed the complainant’s wife to take an insurance policy of the 2nd opp.party and accordingly she took a policy from the opp.party 2. The policy amount was Rs.2,50,000/- an d the 1st premium amount was Rs.25,000/- . The proposal was accepted and insurance policy with No.0018808627 was issued and the date of commencement of risk was from 28.3.2006. At the time of taking policy the said Valsala Kumary was of sound health. While so, on 4.7.06 she became ill suddenly and was admitted in the Mercy Hospital, Valakom where she died on the next day. The cause of death as confirmed by the doctors is sudden hypertension and the only the complainant and others became aware of her disease. At the time of proposal and acceptance of proposal Valsala Kumary was not suffering from any disease. When the claim for insurance amount was made it was repudiated. Hence the complaint. Opp.party 1 filed version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable as the other legal heirs of the deceased have not been impleaded. The averments in paras 1 to 4are admitted. On 19.10.2006 an agreement was entered into between opp.party 2 and Syndicate Bank under which the 1st opp.party the corporate Agent shall not have any authority to settle the claim. It is true that the 1st opp.party has convassed Valsala Kumari to take the insurance policy. The 1st opp.party is unaware as to whether the deceased was having hypertension or diabetes at the inception of policy. It is admitted that Valsala Kumari suddenly became ill and died at the Mercy Hospital Valakom and the cause of death was sudden hypertension. The 1st opp.party never knew that she had any such illness. Upon intimate from the complainant this opp.party informed the same to the 2nd opp.party. As per the terms of the agreement between opp.parties 1 and 2 the 2nd opp.party alone is liable to pay the insurance claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.party 1 The 2nd opp.party filed a separate version also contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The averments in para 1 to 3 are admitted. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the other Legal representatives of the deceased are not impleaded. The deceased was suffering from hypertension and diabetes at the time of making proposal for policy. Dr. Mukundan who treated her at the Brothers Hospital, Kottarakkara has certified that she was suffering from the above diseases for the last 4 years of taking policy. The death summary of the deceased issued from Mercy Hospital, Valakom where she died divulge the fact that she was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and hypertension which would show that she had previous knowledge about her illness when the policy was taken which she had suppressed. In these circumstances the claim was disallowed. There is no deficiency in service on the side of opp.party 2. Hence opp.party 2 prays to dismiss the complaint. Evidence in the issuance courts of Points for consideration are: 1. Whether the deceased had pre existing illness at the time of taking insurance policy from opp.party ? 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D3 are marked. Points:- As a matter of fact policy is admitted. The policy commenced from 28.3.2006 and the insured died on 4.7.06 are also not disputed. The contention of opp.party 2 is that the insured suppressed the fact that she had pre existing diseases at the time of giving proposal and therefore the insured is not eligible for the insurance claim. DW.1 was examined by opp.party 2 in support of their contention who has proved Ext. D2 certificate. The marking of Ext.D2 was objected as it is a photocopy. It is to be noted that Ext. D2 is dated 7.10.2006 whereas the death of the insured was on 4.7.06. It is also pertinent to note that the address of the patient the IP or OP number etc are absent in Ext.D2. So as argued by the complainants Ext. D2 cannot be said to be in respect of the insured herein In cross examination DW.1 admitted that there is the Register showing the details of the patients treated by him in his hospital which would contain the details of the patient. He would admit that he was asked appear with the Register in the Summons. DW.1 has no explanation for not bringing the Register. It is also pertinent to note that from which date the patient was suffering from the illness is also significantly absent in D2. DW.1 would not remember the date of last examination of the patient by him. According to DW.1 the original of Ext. D2 was issued to PW,1 for production before the insurance authorities. No sensible person would obtain a certificate like Ext. D2 for production before the insurance authorities for claiming insurance amount. It is also not known as to why DW.1 kept the copy of Ext.D2 certificate. The omission to produce the relevant records by DW.1 despite the direction in the witness summons and non production of any other material by opp.party 2 to show that he has actually treated the deceased render the evidence of DW.1 not trustworthy. It is an admitted fact that the deceased died at the Mercy Hospital, Valakom. Opp.party2 has stated in their version that the diagnosis of the insured at the Mercy Hospital indicates that she was suffering from non insulin dependent Diabetics Mellitus and hypertension. But strangely no medical certificate from the Mercy Hospital was produced. The doctor who attended the deceased or the doctor who alleged to have diagnosed the illness of the deceased was not examined for reasons best known to opp.party 2. In these circumstances the evidence of DW.1 cannot be safely relied on to come to any conclusion that the insured/deceased had any pre-existing disease at the time of giving proposal form. The 2nd opp.party in our view has failed to establish that the insured had pre-existing disease at the time of inception of policy which she had suppressed. The repudiation of claim herein is deficiency in service on the side of the 2nd opp.party. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the 2nd opp.party to pay the complain ants the claim amount of Rs.2,50,000/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 29.3.2007 till payment. The 2nd opp.party is also directed to pay the complainants a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost. The order shall be complied with within one month. Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010. I N D E XList of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Viswanadhan Pillai.M.K. List of documents for the complainant: NIL List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – Dr. Mukundan List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Proposal form for Life Insurance D2. – Certificate D3. – Corporate agency agreement | 
