1.       By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short “the Insurance Company”) calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 12.10.2011, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1248 of 2008.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 24.06.2008, passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 304 of 2005.  By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Legal Heirs of the Insured, namely, Mohanbhai Muljibhai Parmar, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim preferred by them against the life insurance policy obtained by the Insured in the assured sum of ₹1,00,000/-, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant assured sum of ₹1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the application, i.e. 31.12.2005, till realization, along with a sum of ₹5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and ₹3,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.       We have heard Mr. Arunav Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, and taken into consideration the written submissions received from the Complainants through post.

3.       The short question for consideration in the present Revision Petition is whether the Insured had made a wrong declaration with respect to pre-existing ailments pertaining to liver, stomach, heart, lungs, kidney, brain and nervous system and failed to furnish information relating to certain diseases, mentioned in the column pertaining to the personal history.  It may be noted at this juncture itself that the claim preferred by the Complainants was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the Insured had failed to disclose the diseases he was suffering at the time of obtaining the policy.

4.       Although strictly going by the rule book, we find merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel but bearing in mind the quantum of the amount involved, i.e. ₹1,00,000/-, and the fact that evidently the proposal form could not be filled up, the way it has been, as it is not in dispute that the Insured was illiterate, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction.  More so, when both the Forums below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that there was no deliberate non-disclosure of any material fact by the Insured regarding his pre-existing disease.  Nevertheless, as there has been some omission on the part of the Insured in not trying to understand the implication of the answers incorporated in the proposal form before appending his signatures thereon, the Insurance Company should not be made liable to pay interest on the said amount, as directed by the Fora below.        

5.       Consequently, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent that the Insurance Company shall not be liable to pay the interest awarded by the lower Fora on the principal amount of ₹1,00,000/-, provided the said amount is paid to the Complainants within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.       The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, keeping open the question of law sought to be raised in the Revision Petition.