Petitioner’s husband had taken a policy for a sum of Rs.3 Lacs on 28.11.2003.  He died on 07.04.2004 due to cardiac arrest.  Claim lodged by the petitioner was repudiated by the respondent insurance company on the ground of suppression of material facts.  Being aggrieved petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3 Lacs to the petitioner/complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization.

          Insurance company being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum and came to the conclusion that the insured was suffering from diabetes and hypertension for the last ten years and that he had remained on medical leave on several occasions between 1998 to 2003.  That the life assured had also concealed the fact about his profession.  In the proposal form he disclosed that he was running a Kiryana shop whereas he was an employee of Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd., Chandigarh.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that the life assured was guilty of suppression of facts.  State Commission observed as under:

“In the instant case it is well established on record that the Life Assured was suffering from diabetes and hypertension for the last 10 years and he was availing medical leave for the last five years i.e. 18.10.98 to

15.11.98, 26.11.98 to 31.12.98, 22.2.99 to 3.3.99, 22.6.99 to 4.7.99, 17.10.2000 to 22.10.2000 and 11.12.2000 to 14.12.2000 and then from 25.6.2002 to 29.6.2002 and 26.4.2003 to 10.5.2003.  The Life assured further concealed the fact with respect to his profession.  In the proposal form he was disclosed that he was running a Kiryana shop whereas he was an employee of Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. Chandigarh.  Thus, the Life Assured had concealed the true and material information from the opposite party at the time of obtaining the insurance policy.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The finding recorded by the State Commission is based on evidence.  There is no error in exercise of jurisdiction.  This Commission under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1956 can interfere with the order of the State Commission only if the State Commission has committed an error in exercise of its jurisdiction.  Dismissed. 

It seems that during the pendency of the proceedings before the fora below, the petitioner widow was paid the awarded amount.   

The State Commission has put the insurance company at liberty to recover the entire amount paid to the complainant during the pendency of the proceedings.  In case the amount has already been paid to the petitioner, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that only 50% of the amount be recovered from the petitioner.  Dismissed.