KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.226/07
JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2010
PRESENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India
reptd. by its Zonal Manager,
Southern Zonal Office,
Chennai.
2. LIC of India -- APPELLANTS
reptd. by the Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Ernakulam,
Kochi-682011.
3. LIC of India
reptd. by the Branch Manager,
Branch No.2, Thrissur.
(By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)
Vs.
Seema Anto,
W/0 late Anto.A.L, -- RESPONDENT
Chiramel House, Chettupuza.P.O,
Thrissur.
(By Adv.Antony Pellissery)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellants were the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the respondent was the complainant in OP.678/99 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ( LIC of India) in repudiating the Insurance claim preferred by the complainant in her capacity as the nominee of the life assured late A.L.Anto who had taken a life policy from the opposite party LIC of India on 28.3.93 for a sum of Rs.1 lakh as the insurance amount. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version justifying their action in repudiating the insurance claim. They contended that the policy was lapsed on two occasions and the said policy was revived for the second time on 10.1.97 and while submitting the proposal for getting the lapsed policy revived the husband of the complainant A.L.Anto as the life assured suppressed material fact regarding his health condition. Thus, there was suppression of material fact by the proposor who submitted the proposal for getting the policy revived on 10.1.97.
2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and P1 to P3 documents were marked on her side. From the side of the opposite parties RWs 1 and 2 were examined and R1 to R18 documents were marked. The medical record and admission record maintained at Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore were produced and marked as Exts.X1 and X2. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint in OP.678/99 by the impugned order dated 4th April 2007. It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed.
3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. This Commission was pleased to hear the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the oral testimony of RW1, the then Development Officer of LIC of India and X1 Medical Record and R10 proposal submitted by the life assured on 10.1.97. Thus, the appellants requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
4. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant was the nominee of the life assured A.L.Anto who had taken a life policy for Rs.1 lakh. The said policy was taken on 28.3.93 from the office of the LIC at Bangalore. Admittedly, the policy was subsequently transferred to Thrissur. The aforesaid policy was lapsed by non-payment of the half yearly premium on March 96 and September 96. The aforesaid policy was revived on 10.1.97. The life assured Anto died on 15.9.98. It is after the death of the life assured the complainant being the nominee of the life assured submitted the claim for the insurance amount. It was repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the life assured suppressed material facts regarding his health condition while submitting the proposal for getting the lapsed policy revived.
5. Ext.R10 is the declaration of good health (proposal) submitted by the life assured on 10.1.97 declaring that the life assured is in good health. It was also declared that the life assured had not undergone any medical or surgical treatment or X-Ray, ECG, Pathological or other test since the date of proposal or last revival of this date. But, R10 declaration is disputed by respondent/ complainant (nominee). It is her case that no such declaration was given by the life assured on 10.1.97. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that the life assured A.L.Anto was in Velloor Christian Medical College on 10.1.97. But there is no acceptable evidence on record to show that the life assured was at Velloor on 10.1.97. But Ext.X1 medical record would show that the life assured was in Christian Medical College Hospital Velloor on 14.1.97. Ext.X1 medical record (at Page 33) would show that the treatment started on 14.1.97 and completed on 3.3.97. There is no document to show that the life assured Anto was at Velloor on 10.1.97. Ext.R10 declaration was signed on 10.1.97 at Bngalore. The aforesaid declaration is signed by a witness by name Unnikrishnan. The aforesaid witness in R10 declaration has been examined as RW1. He categorically deposed that the life assured A.L.Anto signed R10 declaration on 10.1.97 at Bangalore and that the witness Unnikrishnan was there at the time of affixing the signature by life assured A.L.Anto. There is no reason or ground to doubt the testimony of RW1, the witness to R10 declaration of good health. Thus, the evidence of RW1 would strengthen the case of the appellants/opposite parties that the life assured submitted R10 declaration of good health on 10.1.97.
6. It is a very settled position that for getting revival of the lapsed life policy, the life assured has to submit a proposal in the form of declaration regarding his health condition. The complainant as PW1 has categorically deposed that she is not having any idea or knowledge about the revival of the lapsed policy. It is to be noted that the complainant has no case that the lapsed policy was revived without submitting any proposal in the form of a declaration. It is also to be noted that the complainant has no case that the life assured had not submitted a declaration disclosing his health conditions. It can very safely be concluded that the life assured submitted a declaration stating his health condition as good. So, the Forum below cannot be justified in not relying on R10 declaration of good health. The Forum below has also gone wrong in making a comparison of the disputed signature of the life assured in R10 with the admitted signature of the life assured in P2 will dated 16.4.98. It is to be noted that there was a time gap of about 1 ½ years in affixing the signature in R10 declaration dated 10.1.97 and P2 will dated 16.4.98. More over, the complainant has not adduced any independent evidence to substantiate her case that the signature of the life assured in R10 is a forged signature. It is for the person who alleges forgery to establish the alleged act of forgery. But in this case the complainant has not adduced any independent acceptable evidence to prove the alleged forgery.
7. Ext.X1 medical record maintained at Christian Medical College Hospital, Velloor with respect to the treatment of life assured A.L.Anto would make it clear that the life assured was having rectal carcinoma from November 1996 on wards. A perusal of Ext.X1 Medical record would make it abundantly clear that the life assured was suffering from rectal carcinoma and that fact was suppressed by the life assured while submitting R10 declaration. Thus, the appellants/opposite parties have succeeded in establishing their case regarding suppression of material fact by the life assured while submitting R10 declaration for getting the lapsed policy revived. So, the Forum below cannot be justified in allowing the complaint in OP.678/99. The Forum below has not properly appreciated the facts, circumstances and the evidence available on record in the correct perspective. So, this Commission have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order dated 4th April 2007 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP.678/99.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP.678/99 is quashed. The complaint in the said OP.678/99 is dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
s/L
