Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 7.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby her complaint bearing No.643 of 2009 seeking insurance claim was dismissed. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that Sh.Saroop Singh, husband of the complainant (now deceased) got himself insured from OP Insurance Company vide Policy No. 12397280. The date of commencement of risk was 13.8.2008 and term of the policy was for six years. The premium payable was Rs.10,000/-annually and the sum assured was for Rs.2.00 lacs. Unfortunately, life assured Sarup Singh died on 4.12.2008 due to heart attack. Accordingly, complainant being nominee under the policy, submitted the Claim Form-B along with all the relevant papers but the claim was repudiated by the OPs on account of suppression of material facts. However, a cheque of Rs.4388.99/- as fund balance was also sent to her, terming this step of the Company as goodwill gesture. Complainant then got issued a notice on OPs on 19.3.2009 but still her claim was not paid. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 4. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the deceased policy holder had suppressed material facts regarding his health condition at the time of availing the said policy as the deceased policy holder had undergone Disulfuram Antobuse Treatment in the month of January 2008 at Drug De-Addiction and Treatment Centre, Department of Psychiatry, PGIMER, Chandigarh and the said treatment was generally given to chronic alcoholic patients, but the same was not disclosed by the deceased at the time of filling up the proposal form, hence, the OPs had rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the grounds of non-disclosure of material facts as per Section 45 of the Insurance Act. 1938. It was pleaded that as a goodwill gesture the fund balance amount of Rs.4388.93 was refunded to the complainant and she was informed about the repudiation of death claim, so, there was no deficiency in service on their part and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the complaint and dismissed the same. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/ complainant is that her deceased husband got education only upto seventh class and could not understand English language but the form was in English Language which was filled by the insurance advisors and he had only signed the form. According to item NO.1 of guidelines the form was to be filled in by the proposer himself/herself and in the event of proposer was unable to fill the form due to inability to read or understand the language, the help of a person other than the advisor/employee of insurance/insurance intermediary was to be taken. Further a declaration was to be given in this regard by the said person but in the instant case the declaration had been signed by the person who belonged to the insurance company .Thus, all the three signatories were officials of the insurance company who had signed the form at Chandigarh in the office and later on mentioned the place Kharar by putting cross on the word ‘Chandigarh’. This was a malpractice/unfair trade practice adopted by the insurance company in order to broaden its business ambit without following the required instructions. However, these points of arguments have been repelled by the learned counsel for respondents/OPs. 7. The patient record Annexure R-1 produced by OPs before the District Forum shows that the life assured was undergoing treatment of ‘carcinoma tongue” and he was admitted in the PGIMER, Chandigarh on 10.1.2008. His biopsy report did not suggest cancer of tongue and then he had given consent for undergoing disulfirm treatment on 29.1.2008 in the PGI. Further, the deceased had not given correct information at the time of proposal as answers to questions No.28 & 32 of the proposal form were given in ‘negative’ which was contrary to the facts as the proposer was taking treatment for ‘carcinoma tongue’ in the PGI and was prescribed medication. 8. There is no dispute about it that the proposal form was in English and life assured Sarup Singh had signed in Punjabi but after signing the statement it would be presumed that the contents of the proposal form were read over to him and he was supposed to know the contents before signing the same and answers to questions would be treated to be given by him. Even otherwise it is not disputed that at the time of proposal the deceased life assured was undergoing treatment in the PGIMER for ‘carcinoma tongue’ and was taking medication and drugs prescribed by the doctors. Had he disclosed the true facts at the time of proposal, the officials of insurance company would not have provided insurance cover. 9. This Commission has sympathy with the widow of the life assured who died in the young age of 37 years leaving behind five children but still it is to add here that the contract of insurance rests on utmost good faith and the proposer/ insured is expected to reply to the questions correctly. Any wrong information given by him in order to procure contract of insurance would make the insurance contract void, thereby, absolving the insurance company of any liability under the Agreement. In the instant case, admittedly answers to the questions No.28 & 32 were wrong and thus the insured obtained the contract of insurance by concealing the true information , which otherwise would not have been given to him by the OP, had he given correct answers. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion , we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 7.10.2009 passed by the learned District Forum and it requires no interference. Accordingly the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
