Heard counsel for petitioners and respondent.

          Succinctly put, facts are that deceased insured had secured two insurance policies with accident benefits for assured value of Rs.1,00,000/- each.  There is no dispute with regard to first policy as after claim having been

-2-

submitted by respondent pursuant to death of insured, claim was settled by petitioner-Insurance Corporation.  However, for not maintaining financial discipline in making installments in time, second insurance policy had lapsed, which was undisputedly revived on 20^th May, 2006.  While so, insured died on 31^st July, 2006.  As insured died only after two and a half months of revival of policy, petitioner-Insurance Corporation carried out detailed investigation to find out genuineness of claim and relying on employer’s certificate, which revealed that insured proceeded on leave occasionally on medical grounds, and also medical certificate issued by doctor, repudiated claim avoiding its liability to compensate the loss suffered for suppression of material particulars at the time of revival of policy.  Aggrieved with repudiation of claim, respondent instituted a consumer complaint when there was fractured opinion about admissibility of claim as while one Member held that claim was not to be honoured there being no invalidity in repudiating claim, majority view prevailed which held that petitioner-Insurance Corporation should honour claim and made direction as such.  After an appeal was preferred by petitioner-Insurance Corporation it did not find favour with State Commission, which, relying on catena of decisions of this Commission which were based on observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court, held that claim of respondent cannot be faulted and finding no flaw with order of District Forum dismissed appeal.  It is after dismissal of appeal that petitioner-Insurance Corporation is in revision.

-3-

          Learned counsel for petitioner-Insurance Corporation while referring to medical certificate issued by doctor, who on examining the case found that insured had abdominal tuberculosis preceding revival of policy submits that these facts are so eloquent which cannot be lost sight of about suppression of material particulars at the time of securing revival of policy by the insured as for status of his health.  Reliance on employer’s certificate about the insured having proceeded on leave occasionally on medical grounds was evidently wrong assumption about the status of health of the insured to repudiate the claim, as such certificates are usually granted by the employer.  That apart, medical certificate issued by doctor would also suggest that this certificate was not issued on medical examination of the insured rather than the observations made therein were based on the case record of the insured.  This need not be reiterated, crystallized by catena of decisions that absence of hospital record suggesting treatment and also doctor filing affidavit in support of observations made would not authorize the petitioner-Insurance Corporation to draw conclusion about suppression of material particulars by the insured at the time of securing revival of policy.  In view this, provision made in second para of Section 45 of Insurance Act, 1938 was not attracted to the facts of the present case.  The action of the petitioner-Insurance Corporation in concluding from certificate that deceased was suffering from abdominal tuberculosis and thereby repudiating contract was wholly illegal.  The observations were made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Life 

-4-

Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Smt. G.M. Channabasamma [(1991) 1 SCC 357] that Life Insurance Corporation was not justified in repudiating complainant’s case merely on the basis of certificate of hospital treatment without any corroborative evidence, especially in view of the fact that the burden of proving that insured had made false representation and suppressed material facts lay on the Life Insurance Corporation of India.  The findings of fora below which were based on meticulous appreciation of the issues involved, not in my considered opinion, do not require interference.  Revision petition being devoid of substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.