National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Badri Nageswaramma (Deceased) And Ors. on 17 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: II(2005)CPJ9(NC)
ORDER
M.B. Shah, J. (President)
1. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, in C.D. No. 139 of 1992, arrived at the conclusion that one Badri Krishnaiah took an LIC policy for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 29th March, 1988. He paid two premiums and died on 8.6.1989, due to viral meningo encephalitis. The wife and the nominee filed a complaint claiming the amount due under the policy as the LIC repudiated its liability on the ground that the deceased took some treatment at Madras and was suffering from T.B, prior to the proposal which was not disclosed.
2. It was also contended that the assured suffered from lung disease and diabetes-mellitus before the date of the proposal and that this fact was suppressed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on Exhibit B-3 which is a Medical Attendance Certificate dated 5.7.1989 issued by Dr. T. Santhosham Chest Hospital, Madras. It was mentioned in the said certificate that the deceased was admitted on 4.6.1989 and was suffering from fever, vomiting, etc. for a week prior to admission and died on 8.6.1989. The primary cause of death mentioned was acute 'viral meningo encephalitis' and the secondary cause was diabetes-Mellitus.
3. The State Commission considered the certificate and observed that the treatment was given since 7th December, 1988, i.e., prior to six months of the death and, therefore, there was nothing on record to establish that the assured was suffering from the T.B. on the date of the proposal. Further, it commented that Exhibit B-4 was the certificate of the hospital treatment issued by the same Doctor that the assured was a old T.B. patient and was having diabetes and the same was first observed on 7.12.1988. Therefore, the said observation of the Doctor would mean that on the date of the proposal it was not known to the deceased that he has suffering from any ailment,
4. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. G.M. Channabasemma, AIR 1991 SC 392 and L.I.C. and Ors. v. Asha Goel, I (2001) SLT 89=(2001) 2 SCC 160, the Apex Court has reiterated that burden of proving that the insured had made, false representations and suppressed material facts is undoubtedly on the Corporation.
5. From the facts discussed by the State Commission it is apparent that the L.I.C. has failed to discharge the said burden. When the policy was taken the insured was aged about 46 years and the medical officer certified that he was having good health. That medical officer is not examined by the Insurance Company. It is to be noted that the same Doctor has written a letter dated 9.8.1989 to the Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India that the deceased used to attend his clinic as out patient for getting injection Neurobion as advised by Santosham Chest Hospital at Madras. He was a known diabetic. To the interrogatories/questionnaire issued by the LIC Dr. Ravi T. Santosham has only stated that prior to six months, i.e., since 7.12.1989 he attended the deceased for treatment of diabetics and tuberculosis of lung and kidneys. The deceased had first consulted him on 4.6.1989. In our view such a certificate without any affidavit in support cannot be the basis for repudiating the claim.
6. Hence, the findings recorded by the State Commission cannot be said to be erroneous which would call for interference, as there is no conclusive evidence on record to suggest that there was any suppression on the part of the deceased. The Insurance Company has failed to prove suppression on the part of the deceased.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.