1.       Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belgaum (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (for short, the State Commission), the Petitioner/ Opposite Party – Life Insurance Corporation of India / LIC filed this Revision Petition No. 2256 of 2019 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against Smt. Shilpa (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent/ Complainant. The Complaint filed by the Complainant being Consumer Complaint No. 369 of 2013 before the District Forum was partly allowed.

2.       The key issue in this Revision Petition is whether the repudiation of the life insurance claim of the Complainant by LIC on the ground of suppression of material fact is justified. The deceased life assured (DLA) had taken an insurance Policy for an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs by filling up the proposal form on 08.01.2010. The Policy was made effective from 02.02.2010. The life assured expired on 21.02.2012 during the currency of the policy. The Petitioner / LIC repudiated the claim on the ground of suppression of information relating to the DLA suffering from diabetes and hypertension for a prolonged period of time. The DLA was hospitalised on 22.01.2010 to 29.01.2010. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have allowed the Complaint filed by the Complainant / nominee of the insurance policy on the ground that the hospitalisation took place subsequent to the filling-up of the proposal form and, therefore, cannot be considered to be suppression of any material fact. The learned Counsel for LIC submitted that the hospital discharge summary clearly states that the DLA was a known case of diabetes and hypertension on regular treatment and this information should have been provided by the DLA in the proposal form in the relevant questionnaire. Instead of supplying this information, the DLA has stated that he has not suffered from any disease. This is going against the basic insurance principle of utmost faith. He cited the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod, (2019) 6 SCC 175, dated 24.04.2019.

3.       On a careful perusal of the hospital discharge summary, it is clear that the patient was suffering from diabetes and hypertension and has suppressed this information in the proposal form.

4.       I am not in agreement with the Orders of the District Forum and the State Commission that since the hospitalisation took place only subsequent to the submission of the proposal form, the question of suppression of facts does not arise.  Though it is a fact that the hospitalisation took place subsequent to the filling-up of the proposal form, it is also clear from the hospital record that he was “a known case of diabetes and hypertension on regular treatment” and this fact has been ignored by the two Commissions.  In my opinion, this is definitely suppression of fact and LIC is within its legal rights to repudiate the claim of the Complainant.

5.       In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed and the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside.