PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.09.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 7/2012 – Smt. T. Pushpamma  Vs. The Sr. Branch Manager, LIC of India by which, appeal was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner is the mother and nominee of the deceased T.N.Jeevan Kumar who died on 25.4.2007 while taking treatment in Chennai Kaliappa Hospital, R.A.Puram, Chennai. During his life time, the deceased Jeevan Kumar obtained Bhima Gold Policy bearing no.843101455 on 27.3.2006 from Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Chittoor i.e. opp.party no.1/respondent no. 1. The sum assured under the basic plan is Rs.5 lakhs and also accident benefit rider sum assured Rs.5 lakhs. The said T.N.Jeevan Kumar died on 25.4.2007 after paying three half yearly premiums regularly, without any default . The cause of the death of the said T.N.Jeevan Kumar is described as CRF ACUDEDIARRHEAL DESEASE SEVERE ACIDISES respiratory arrest revived and ventilated. Severe brain stem dis-function as per the death certificate issued by Chennai, Karliappa Hospital. After the death of her son Jeevan Kumar, the complainant claimed the assured amount from the opposite parties and the opposite parties repudiated the claim under letter dt.15.4.2008 for giving false answers in the proposal form suppressing chronic renal problems/failure prior to the date of proposal. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum.  OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that it was an early claim, an investigation was conducted. As per the investigation, it was revealed that the deceased/life assured’s length of service with his employer was only four months, that the deceased was admitted in CMC Hospital, Vellore on 4.5.2006, that the deceased assured had facial puppines at the age of 12 years. That the deceased’s father and elder brother died due to renal failure and that the deceased had Stage V chronic kidney disease. But in the proposal form no.300 submitted by the deceased, while taking the above policy, the deceased had not disclosed all the above details and he has given false answers for question no.11(a) to (i). He has also stated fraudulently in the proposal that his length of service with the employer was two years. Thus the deceased had taken insurance policy from opp.party no.1 fraudulently by suppression of the chronic disease from which he was suffering and he made misrepresentation regarding family history while answering question no.10 in the proposal form. All the material facts are suppressed at the time of effecting the proposal. Under these circumstances, the repudiation of the claim by the opp.parties is valid.  Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  OP No. 2 adopted written statement of OP No. 1.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP to refund back premium of Rs. 25,698/- with 9% p.a. interest.  Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3.     Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4.     As there is delay of only 5 days in filing revision petition, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.

5.     Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of no proof of knowledge of disease at the time of submitting proposal form, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complainant be paid amount as per policy.  On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

6.     It is not disputed that complainant’s son T.N. Jeevan Kumar obtained insurance coverage from OP No. 1 by submitting proposal form on 27.3.2006.  In the proposal form in family history he disclosed that his father died at the age of 58 years and all the three brothers are alive having good health.  On the contrary, as per admission of complainant himself, complainant’s husband died due to kidney failure and complainant’s elder son Nandakumar also died due to kidney failure at the age of 34 years. Thus, it becomes clear that deceased furnished wrong information about cause of death of his father and aliveness of his brothers in good health.  Perusal of personal history in proposal form also reveals that he has shown his health to be good and replied every query in negative whereas record reveals that deceased was a chronic kidney patient and was having facial puppines since the age of 12 years.  As per evidence of treating doctor this fact also becomes clear that insured got admitted in the hospital on 21.4.2007 at advance stage of kidney failure and died just after 4 days. Thus, it becomes clear that deceased while submitting proposal form suppressed material evidence regarding his illness and furnished false information regarding health and illness of his brother and father.

7.     In the proposal form he submitted that he was working in Bangalore for 2 years whereas investigation revealed that he was working their only since last 4 months and had no sufficient income for insurance on his life.  Thus, it becomes clear that deceased furnished false information regarding his tenure of service and earning.

8.     As deceased furnished false information on material aspects, learned District Forum has not committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission after elaborate discussion rightly dismissed appeal.

9.     I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

10.   Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.