Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant’s husband had purchased LIC policy under Plan “Jeevan Shree – I” on 8.8.2012 for sum assured of Rs.7,00,000/- with death benefits. After the policy was purchased the policy holder died on 23.2.2013 while undergoing treatment at Mumbai. Thereafter, claim was made but the OPs repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy holder has suppressed the material fact of his pre-existing disease at the time of filling up of the proposal form. Being aggrieved of that complaint was filed.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that after the claim was made, they have enquired and found that the policy holder has suppressed the material fact with regard to his ill-health while filling up of the proposal form. It is pleaded that the policy holder was suffering from cancer prior to filling up of the proposal form.

5.      After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            In the result, we direct the opposite parties who are jointly and severally liable to pay the assured claim amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs) only to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- only towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- only for cost of litigation. The above order shall be complied by the OPs within 45days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the aforesaid amounts under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The consumer complaint of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not taking the written version into consideration. However, the counsel for the appellants could not remain present at the time of hearing for the reasons best known to him. As the OPs/appellants could not produce the evidence due to latches of the lawyer, the matter was heard ex-parte and impugned order was passed. Therefore, he submitted that  opportunity should be given to the OPs to produce all the records of the previous disease the policy holder was suffering and the treatment extended thereon.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellants to participate the hearing but he has not availed the same. For that the case should not be allowed to remand. He also strenuously urged that if at all the case is to be remanded, the complainant should be adequately compensated.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      Para – 4 of the impugned order is important which is placed below:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

4.        On the date of hearing we have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs are found absent on repeated calls. In fact the learned counsel for the OPs were directed to remain  present without fail for final hearing of the consumer dispute but in spite of the directions on dated 26.07.2017 and 04.09.2017 respectively the OPs failed to represent their case. We, therefore, decided to dispose of the case on merit on hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and going through the materials placed on the case record.”

10.    The aforesaid observation of the learned District Forum clearly shows that the lawyer for the OPs filed written version but again remained absent at the time of hearing the reasons best known to him.

11.    Be that as it may, law is settled that for the latches of the lawyer, the party should not be allowed to suffer.

12.    In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that another opportunity should be given to the OPs to produce the materials on record which would help to decide the case on merit. Hence, balancing the case of both parties, the appeal is allowed by remanding the same to the learned District Forum subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the appellants to the respondent before the learned District Forum. If the cost is paid, learned District Forum would allow both parties to adduce evidence, if any and dispose of the case in accordance with provision of law within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 30.6.2022 to receive further instruction from it.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.