National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sabnam Devi And Ors. vs Lic Of India And Ors. on 31 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ133(NC)
ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The complaint of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar in Appeal No. 826 of 2000 holding that the contract of insurance was void.
2. According to the complainant/ petitioner, Manoj Kumar Singh had taken insurance policy for Rs. 2.00 lakh on 28.9.1989. Manoj Kumar Singh died on 4.6.1990 on account of heart failure by drowning during the continuance of the policy. LIC repudiated the claim through letter dated 29.4.1997 even the Reviewing Committee of the LIC rejected the prayer for reconsideration. It was alleged by opposite party No. 3, namely, Chandradeo Rai, agent ot the LIC that there was material suppression at the time of taking policy. The deceased was suffering from epilepsy and was simply a school student. Name of the school was also wrongly given. The deceased had taken treatment for epilepsy at Ranchi Mental Hospital. From the medical attendant's certificate submitted by the complainant, it appeared that the deceased showed symptoms of unconsciousness, vomiting breathlessness and convulsion for half an hour before his death which was not expected in the case of a death, caused by drowning.
3. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The State Commission took the view that the policy was taken by suppressing material facts and noted several circumstances to come to the said conclusion. Death took place within 9 months of the policy. The insured was reading in a middle school and as such he was minor. These facts would amount to suppression of material. Declaration given to the effect that the deceased never suffered nor had been suffering from any disease was wrong and investigations showed that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and had undergone treatment at the Ranchi Mental Hospital. The medical attendant's certificate submitted by the complainant himself indicated that the deceased showed symptoms of unconsciousness, vomiting, breathlessness and convulsion for half an hour before his death, which was not expected to occur in the case of drowning.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no evidence whatsoever about treatment of the deceased at Ranchi Mental Hospital for epilepsy. There was no misrepresentation about age and it would not affect the policy. In absence of any explanation as per the investigator's report about the treatment of the deceased in Mental Hospital Ranchi for epilepsy and the symptoms mentioned by the medical attendant, it is evident that there was suppression of material fact and wrong declaration was given. Insofar as epilepsy is concerned, in ordinary medical examination, it could not be revealed unless the epilepsy fit occurred and was detected in the presence of the doctor or otherwise informed about the epilepsy. The fact that the petitioner has failed to make any averment that the deceased was never treated in Mental Hospital, Ranchi for epilepsy in the face of the averment of the respondent that there was material suppression in regard to treatment for epilepsy in Mental Hospital, Ranchi would amount to an indication that treatment in Mental Hospital, Ranchi was an undisputed fact.
5. Seeing in this light, we feel that it is not a fit case where we should interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.