The case record is put up today for further hearing. Neither the complainant nor her Advocate is present and no step is taken on her behalf. The Ops are also absent and no step is taken on their behalf. Thus, the hearing on the matter could not be taken up.

                                         As it appears from the case record, the complainant was remained absent since 24.07.2019 and the Ops were also remained absent since 06.04.2020. Due to the long absent of both the parties, the hearing of this case impaired. It is seen that the OPs No.1 to 3 have made their appearance and filed written version. OP No.4 was set exparte.

                                         On perusal of the complaint petition, it is seen that the deceased husband of the complainant was a policy holder under the OPs No.1 to 3 for a sum assured Rs.48,000/- and OP No.4 was the agent. The deceased husband of the complainant died on 24.11.2011. But, the Ops denied to settle the claim of the complainant.

                                         On the other hand, OPs No.1 to 3 have stated that the complainant has suppressed the material fact to the effect that the deceased was known case of chronic renal failure and diabetic nephropathy and the said fact was not disclosed by the deceased at the time of filling of proposal form. Had the proposer been furnished all the material information as required by the insurer, the matter would have been decided otherwise. 

                                         Upon careful perusal of the pleadings of both the parties and the documents submitted on their behalf, this Commission is of the considered opinion that deceased husband of the complainant did not disclose the pre-existing disease or ailments intentionally prior to inception of the policy in question at the time of proposal and had supplied wrong and false informations in proposal form knowing very well that these were false and incorrect. Thus, the deceased husband of the complainant had intentionally and fraudulently concealed the true state of affairs regarding his health at the time of proposal for insurance. It is, therefore, held that the ailments from which the complainant was suffering is prior to the date of proposal, for which the Ops did not accept the risk on the health of the deceased husband of the complainant. Had he been disclosed the true facts and informations at the time of proposal for insurance, the risk under the policy in question would not have been accepted by the Ops and the policy in question would not have been issued to complainant or would have been issued on different terms and conditions. In all the contract of insurance, the proposer is bound to make full disclosure of all the material facts and nor merely those, which he thinks material, misrepresentation, non-disclosure or fraud in any document leading to acceptance of the risk automatically discharges the insurer from all liabilities under the contract. On the other hand, the deceased husband of the complainant had also supplied a false declaration that the informations supplied by him are all true, accurate and complete and correct in all respects. Hence, it is observed that the contract of insurance is null and void.

                                         From the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs, as claimed for. Therefore, the case is not maintainable. Consequently, the case of the complainant deserves no consideration and liable to be dismissed.

                                         Accordingly, the case of the complainant is hereby dismissed.