National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... vs Nosar Devi on 25 July, 2018
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1174 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 13/11/2017 in Appeal No. 144/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. (G.E. PLAZA) AIRPORT ROAD, YASHWADA, PUNE MAHARASHTRA 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH MR. YOGESH KUMAR ZONAL LEGAL MANAGER,(NORTH) BAJAJ ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. OFFICE AT OPP. GANDHI SEVA SADAN DISTRICT-RAJSAMAND RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NOSAR DEVI ALIAS NOJI DEVI, W/O. LT. MOHAN LAL KUMAWAT, R/O. DOULATPURA POST LAPSIYA TEHSIL RELMAGRA, DISTRICT-RAJSAMAND RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1175 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 13/11/2017 in Appeal No. 145/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) WITH
IA/7977/2018(Stay),IA/7978/2018(Condonation of delay) 1. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. (G.E. PLAZA) AIRPORT ROAD, YASHWADA, PUNE MAHARASHTRA 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH MR. YOGESH KUMAR ZONAL LEGAL MANAGER,(NORTH) BAJAJ ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. OFFICE AT OPP. GANDHI SEVA SADAN DISTRICT-RAJSAMAND RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NOSAR DEVI ALIAS NOJI DEVI, W/O. LT. MOHAN LAL KUMAWAT, R/O. DOULATPURA POST LAPSIYA TEHSIL RELMAGRA, DISTRICT-RAJSAMAND RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankul Nagpal, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 25 Jul 2018 ORDER Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the impugned order, passed by the State Commission, whereby the claims of the Respondent/Complainant have been allowed and, therefore, the Appeals preferred by the Petitioners have been dismissed. The relevant portion of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below:
"The Insurance Company is to prove that the complainant's husband at the time of taking the policy has knowingly concealed his own sickness. In this connection according to the statements of the Insurance Company themselves, the MRI that was got done regarding LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS that was done on 20.12.2007. The complainant's husband took the first policy on 20.5.2005. At that time there is no evidence of such disease to the complainant. The allegation of the Insurance Company is that when both the policies lapsed and then on 5.10.2010 were got revived, at that time these facts were not disclosed by the complainant's husband. The evidence that is available on this point, according to which a DISCHARGE SUMMARY Ex. 8 of Krishna Hospital, from which it appears that the complainant's husband was admitted for one day in the Hospital and his operation for EPIDURAL STEROID was done and he remained admitted merely for one day. Besides this, on 20.12.2007 his MRI was done at Ramsnehi Hospital and Research Centre. But on the basis of this MRI he was not diagnosed for LUMBER SPINAL STENOSIS by any specialist or doctor or he has taken any treatment for this disease. No evidence is available for this, in fact no medical record is available. Though I agree with principles laid down in the citations given by the advocate of appellant, that as consequence of deliberate suppression of facts the policy becomes void, but in this case it has not been proved that the complainant suffered any such disease or he was treated therefor. I am satisfied with the District Forum that this fact cannot be accepted only on the basis of MRI because none of the specialist or doctor has made any diagnosis after examining the Report, this is not the fact. In my view there is no need to interfere with the order of the District Forum. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed."
From a perusal of the aforesaid reasoning given by the State Commission, we are of the opinion that the State Commission has considered all the material and evidence available on record and has rightly dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner.
We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned. Consequently, the Revision Petitions are dismissed.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER