Complainant/respondent’s mother had taken two policies from the petitioner insurance company w.e.f. 17.03.2003 and 11.03.2003 known as ‘HDFC Children Double Benefit Policy’. She died on 17.02.2006. Respondent lodged the claim with the petitioner which was repudiated on the ground that the mother of the respondent had suppressed material facts regarding her health; that she was suffering from cirrhosis of liver prior to the issuance of the policies. Aggrieved by the letter of repudiation, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. -2- Petitioner entered appearance and filed Written Statement. Petitioner had produced the documents Ex.R-6 to R-9 i.e. the record of the hospital showing that the insured was suffering from cirrhosis of liver. District Forum allowed the complaint by observing that the documents Ex. R-8 and R-9 wherein it was mentioned that the insured was suffering from cirrhosis of liver could not be taken into consideration as the Doctors who prepared these documents were not produced in the witness box; that the petitioner had failed to prove that the insured was suffering from any ailment. District Forum directed the petitioner to pay the insured sum of Rs.2 Lac against each of the policies along with interest @ 6% p.a. Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of costs. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has dismissed the same. The State Commission has not taken into consideration the documents R-6, R-8 and R-9. According to the State Commission, Ex.R-7 did not reveal that the insured had taken any treatment from any Doctor prior to the taking of the policies. Counsel for the petitioner contends that Ex.R-8 and R-9 clearly state that the insured was suffering from cirrhosis of liver prior to the taking of the policies; that the State Commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction in as much as it did not take into consideration the material -3- evidence present on record which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Prima-facie we find substance in this submission. The State Commission has erred in not taking into consideration the Ex. R-6, R-8 and R-9. These documents would have a bearing on the result of the case. Since the State Commission did not take these documents into consideration, we are constrained to set aside the order of the State Commission. Revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the entire evidence including Ex.R6, R-8 and R-9. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 24.04.2012. Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the first date of appearance. Nothing stated herein be taken as an expression of opinion. State Commission shall decide the appeal in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
-4- All contentions are left OPEN. | 
