1. This is a Revision Petition filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC) against the concurrent findings of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) dated 17.04.2019 and the Srikakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) dated 28.04.2016. 
2. The basic issue involved in this Revision Petition is whether the evidence produced by LIC substantiating pre-existing disease and its non-disclosure is sufficient ground for allowing the repudiation of the claim filed by the Complainant Randi Mahalaxmi, who is the mother of the Deceased Life Assured (hereinafter referred to as DLA).  The Petitioner has filed only two records one being the Discharge Summary of one hospital by name Yashoda Hospital dated 14.01.2010 and another of a Discharge Slip of CRPF Hospital dated 21.07.2010.  There are two Policies.  The first of Rs.2 lakhs was taken in the year 2007 and renewed annually and the last renewal was on 13.03.2010.  The second Policy is of Rs.1,87,500/- taken on 28.03.2010.  The DLA expired on 30.07.2011 of cardiac arrest as provided for in the Death Certificate issued by the Yashoda Hospital dated 30.07.2011. 
3. The only relevant piece of evidence produced by the Petitioner is the Discharge Summary of Yashoda Hospital dated 14.01.2010, wherein against the head ‘diagnosis’, it has been mentioned ‘Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia’.  This Discharge Summary pre-dates the renewal of the first Policy and also the fresh Policy taken in the year 2010.  The CRPF hospital Discharge Slip is dated 21.07.2010, which is after the Policy dates.
4. Both the two Commissions have gone into this evidence and found not credible and sufficient to prove the pre-existing disease.  Perusal of the Discharge Summary of Yashoda Hospital reveals no details of the hospital except for giving the name of the hospital.  Neither the address nor any phone number of the hospital has been provided in such summary.  There is no corroborating evidence.  Further, the State Commission has observed that the name of the hospital should have been mentioned in the Repudiation Letter or the fact that the DLA had undergone hospitalization and treatment in such a hospital.
5. The Petitioner has not filed either the Proposal Form or the Policy.  This leads to suspicion.  We are not in a position to conclude whether the Proposal Form was filled-up by the DLA or by an Agent and if filled-up by the Agent then whether the same was explained to the DLA about the implications of non-disclosure while ticking entries indicating the health condition of the Insured.
6. Learned Counsel for the LIC submitted that he is depending on the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod and Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Manish Gupta [2019 SCC OnLine SC 593].
7. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Manish Gupta is not applicable, as in that case the medi-claim Policy was taken under “non-medical general”.  In this case, it is not the case.  She further submitted that she had specifically mentioned in her Complaint that the LIC Agent had filled in the answers to the questions.  She further submitted that the death took place on account of cardiac arrest.  No hospital has been mentioned in the Repudiation Letter and that in the Written Version filed by the LIC to her Complaint, no specific denial of the averments made by the Complainant in Paragraph- (e) has been made by the LIC.  In this Paragraph, it was clearly mentioned that the DLA was not suffering from any serious ailment, which would make him ineligible from taking or reviving an Insurance Policy and further it was the LIC Agent, who filled-up the Proposal Form.
8. The case of the Petitioner becomes weak on the ground that neither the Policy nor the Proposal Form has been filed in the Revision Petition.  Secondly, the Discharge Summary of the Hospital has been filed on a piece of paper, which does not inspire confidence about its authenticity as already discussed above.  Thirdly, this is a case of concurrent finding and the scope of this Commission in matters relating to Revision Petition is very limited in view of the following Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

1. Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 decided on 08.09.2022.

2. Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 decided on 07.03.2022.

3. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011.

9. Finally, we are also relying on the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Decided on 09.11.2022, wherein it has been specifically mentioned as under:

21.On a discussion of the aforesaid principle, we would conclude that there is an onerous responsibility on the part of the insurer while dealing with an exclusion clause. We may only add that the insurer is statutorily mandated as per Clause 3(ii) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interests, Regulation 2002) Act dated 16.10.2002 (hereinafter referred to as IRDA Regulation, 2002) to the effect that the insurer and his agent are duty bound to provide all material information in respect of a policy to the insured to enable him to decide on the best cover that would be in his interest. Further, sub-clause (iv) of Clause 3 mandates that if proposal form is not filled by the insured, a certificate has to be incorporated at the end of the said form that all the contents of the form and documents have been fully explained to the insured and made him to understand. Similarly, Clause 4 enjoins a duty upon the insurer to furnish a copy of the proposal form within thirty days of the acceptance, free of charge. Any non-compliance, obviously would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the offending clause, be it an exclusion clause, cannot be pressed into service by the insurer against the insured as he may not be in knowhow of the same.

10. Undoubtedly, in the absence of the Proposal Form, it is not clear whether the Proposal Form was read and explained to the Insured.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Revision Petition is dismissed and the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are upheld.