Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company preferred Appeal No.1758 of 2011 before the State Commission and the State Commission, vide its order dated 23.07.2013, allowed the Appeal of the Insurance Company and set aside the order of the District Forum.

6.      Hence the present Revision Petition.

7.      Heard the Learned Counsel for both the Parties and carefully perused the record.  Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the insured was not suffering from diabetes before filing the proposal form.  The bed head ticket had not been proved by any doctor or any authority of the hospital and therefore the District Forum ought not to have relied upon the bed head ticket.  Only a photocopy was filed by the Insurance Company and without any affidavit of the concerned doctor or any authority of the hospital or without any examination-in-chief, the same cannot be accepted.  The Insurance Company had not filed any documents prior to the date of the Proposal, showing any treatment record of the insured for diabetes.  The onus to prove that any material information had been concealed by the Proposer lies with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company failed in providing any cogent evidence of the same.  The State Commission wrongly relied upon bed head ticket.  The Learned Counsel stated that it is not clear as to who had recorded this observation and on whose instruction. The State Commission had presumed that this information might have been given by the patient herself or her relative, but the fact is that the Proposer was not suffering from diabetes before filling the proposal form.  Simply on the basis of some entry on the bed head ticket, the genuine Insurance Claim of the nominee of the DLA cannot be rejected and particularly when the bed head ticket had not been proved before the District Forum or the State Commission.

8.      On the other hand Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company stated that bed head ticket is an authentic document of the treatment record of the hospital where the insured was admitted from 03.11.2009 till 16.11.2009, when the patient died.  In the bed head ticket, it was clearly recorded under the column of past history that the "DM for 20 years, patient is on insulin".  The doctor recording this observation in the bed head ticket had no enmity with the patient and would not have recorded such an observation on his own.  The information must have been provided by the patient herself or by some relative of the patient. The information, therefore, cannot be treated as unreliable.  In the Doctor's certificate, the cause of death had been reported as "septicemia".  In the column of other disease, diabetes mellitus is also recorded.  It is wrong to say that the patient died of pneumonia, as alleged by the Complainant.  Septicemia has a direct relationship with diabetes and diabetes increases the risk of septicemia.  From the cause of death also, the possibility of patient suffering from diabetes for a long time is confirmed. Learned Counsel further stated that the bed head ticket was from a Government Hospital and cannot be disputed.  There was no necessity of proving the bed head ticket.  Thus, it is clearly proved that the proposer had concealed material information in respect of her disease while filing the proposal form.  The Learned Counsel further argued that the patient was also suffering from hyper tension as recorded in the "Past history".  Thus, the repudiation of the Insurance claim by the Company was totally justified. 

10.    I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for both the Parties and have examined the material on record. The Insurance Company had relied on bed head ticket of the Jawaharlal Nehru hospital for the period 03.11.2009 till 16.11.2009, when the insured died. This bed head ticket was even not a certified copy issued by the hospital, nor the same had been proved by the concerned doctor or any authority of the hospital, either in examination in chief or by way of an affidavit. The repudiation letter was on the ground that the insured was suffering from the diabetes for the last 20 years. The Complainant had mentioned in the Complaint itself that his mother was not suffering from diabetes prior to filing the proposal form. Under these circumstances, the onus lies on the Insurance Company to prove that the insured was suffering from diabetes prior to filing the proposal form. The bed head ticket mentioned under the column of past history "DM for 20 years, the patient is on insulin". As this document is part of the record of the hospital and it's copy was not provided to the patient, the patient or the family members may not be aware about the exact contents of the bed head ticket. A discharge summary is generally provided to the patient or the family members when the patient is discharged from the hospital or if the patient dies, a discharge cum death summary is given to the family members of the patient. As the bed head ticket was not provided to the Complainant, there was no occasion for the Complainant to know the contents of this bed head ticket and to get it rectified, if something incorrect was recorded in it. The Insurance Company had not filed the discharge summary to prove that the patient was suffering from diabetes for last so many years. The Insurance Company had not filed any other document, either a treatment prescription or any other admission details, in any other hospital where the patient was treated for diabetes during the past 20 years. It would have been a clear proof that the patient was suffering from diabetes prior to filing of the proposal form. On the basis of one entry in the bed head ticket, which had not even been proved by either the doctor or any other staff of the hospital or even duly certified by the hospital authorities, particularly when the fact of diabetes was denied by the Complainant in the Complaint itself, the Insurance Claim of the Complainant cannot be repudiated.

B.  

12.    From the above, it can be seen that the treating doctor had not mentioned the duration of the diabetes in this certificate and thus the patient's suffering from diabetes for last 20 years is not corroborated from the Doctor's certificate. Here it is important to note that the bed head ticket is generally prepared by some junior doctor, whereas the doctor's certificate is given by the treating doctor and is more authentic.

13.    This Commission in Revision Petition No.210 of 2018, Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mampi Dhar (Ghosh) & anr. (supra) had allowed the Revision Petition of the Insurance Company by relying on the contents mentioned in the bed head ticket issued by Tripura Medical College. However, from this order, it is not clear whether a copy of the bed head ticket filed in that case was a certified copy issued by the Medical College or whether the same was proved by examination of any doctor or any other staff of the Medical College or by filing any affidavit by the doctor or by any other staff of the Medical College. Thus, the issues being raised here do not seem to have been addressed in that case. Even if all the rigours of the Evidence Act are not required to be followed in Consumer Cases, the evidentiary value of the documents filed should be clear beyond doubt. This would happen if either the documents are certified copies or proved by way of affidavit or in examination in chief or the other party is supposed to have a copy of those documents by virtue of requirement under some law or by practice. Injustice would be done if the Insurance Claim is dismissed on the sole basis of bed head ticket, without any other supporting documents showing the disease of the insured, prior to filing of the proposal form.