The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.02.2021 of the State Commission in Complaint No. 995/2019. 

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the deceased, husband of the complainant, was issued a policy no. 0346254414 in July, 2018 on Home loan sanctioned for purchasing two properties.  In November, 2018 he developed certain complications.  He was admitted in the hospital and subsequently he expired.  The complainant filed claim with the insurance co. and her claim was rejected on the ground of concealment of facts that he was chronic alcoholic and had chronic liver disease.

3.      Aggrieved, the complaint was filed.  The appellants were duly served and they filed written statement wherein the same plea, that the insured concealed pre-existing disease, was taken by the appellants.  The State Commission on hearing the arguments of the parties and considering the documents on record and after relying on case laws, as mentioned in the impugned order, reached to the conclusion that under the law, the burden to prove that deceased was suffering from pre-existing disease at the time of taking policy was upon the appellants, which the appellants had failed to discharge.  Aggrieved by these findings, appellant the insurance co. has filed the present appeal.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the findings of the State Commission are perverse and without jurisdiction.  It is submitted that the documents on which complainant as well as the appellants have relied, mentions the history of the patient i.e. the insured. However, it is submitted that the insured was first admitted in the hospital in September, 2018 when he was diagnosed with Chronic liver disease.  It is submitted that the insured could not have developed disease suddenly and he must have been suffering from it over the period which he had concealed from the appellants at the time of taking the policy.  It is also argued that in November, 2018 again when he was admitted in the hospital and the history of the patient given at the time of admission also shows that he was a chronic liver patient.  It is submitted that these facts were concealed by the insured at the time of purchasing the policy in July, 2018 and the false declaration had vitiated the contract of life insurance.  It was further argued that the history also shows that insured was alcoholic and this fact is sufficient to prove the fact that insured was suffering with chronic liver disease.

5.      We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel and also perused the relevant documents.  Admittedly, the policy was purchased in July, 2018 and the insured was admitted in September, 2018 when he was diagnosed with chronic liver disease.  On enquiry learned counsel for the appellants has failed to bring to our notice any evidences on record which could show that the insured had been admitted in the hospital or was taking treatment for chronic liver disease before July, 2018 and thus he was aware of the fact that he was suffering from chronic liver disease in July, 2018 when policy was issued to him.  It is a settled proposition of law that the concealment is the concealment of fact of which the concealer was aware of.  If the person buying the policy was not aware of any disease with which he was suffering and subsequently it manifests itself, it cannot be said that the insured had concealed the fact of which he himself was not aware.  In the present case there is nothing on record which could prove even by prepondering of evidences that in July, 2018 the insured was aware that he was suffering with chronic liver disease.  The burden to prove that the insured was aware of this fact is squarely upon the appellants which they have failed to discharge.  It is also argued by learned counsel that the insured was a chronic alcoholic which fact is also clear from the history mentioned in his treatment record at the time of his admission in November, 2018 in the hospital.  We have perused the history and from the history of the patient it is clear that the insured had left the alcohol six months prior to his admission in November, 2018.  If so calculated, he had already left the alcohol before purchasing the policy.  Taking of alcohol is not a criterion unless it is shown that the patient was suffering with chronic alcoholism.  Impression chronic alcoholic is not mentioned in the history of the patient in the document of his admission in November, 2018.  There is also no evidence on record that the insured was suffering with chronic alcoholism. 

6.      From the above discussion it is apparent that the findings of the State Commission are based on the evidences on record and the law of the land.

7.      We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.  The present first appeal is dismissed in limine.