Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/625/2016

Assistent Supertendent of Post Office - Complainant(s)

Versus

Udai Singh Hada s/o Late Ummed Singh Hada Age 11 Year Through Natural Gurdian Shri Manoj Kumar Shekh - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Sharma

30 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 625 /2016

 

Asstt. Superintendent of Post Offices Southern Division, Ajmer & ors.

Vs.

Udai Singh Hada s/o Late Umed Singh Hada through Natural Guardian Manoj Kumar Shekhawat r/o 1117/45 Before Railway Crossing, Kalyanipura Road, Ajmer.

 

Date of Order 30.3. 2017

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member

 

None present on behalf of the appellants

Mr.S.P.Gandhi counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of

2

 

learned DCF Ajmer dated 5.4.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant by way of appeal is that material facts have been suppressed by the insured as he was suffering from renal disease and died due to kidney failure. Hence, claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that at the time of purchase of the policy the insured was not suffering from any disease and no facts have been suppressed.

 

Heard the counsel for the respondent as none appeared on behalf of the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

Facts are not in dispute that Ummed Singh insured, father of the complainant purchased a postal insurance policy on 25.2.2009. He died on 17.5.2011. The policy was repudiated on the ground that the disease was suffering from renal disease and reference has been made of letter dated 8.5.2014 in which it has been stated that the insured was suffering from renal disease and remained under treatment in SMS Hospital,Jaipur.

3

A letter was also issued from the Department of Post to Tehsildar Bhinay to get information about the medical leave and medical reimbursement of the deceased which was answered vide letter dated 28.1.2013 which speaks that the deceased has not taken any medical leave from February 2006 to February 2009 and no medical reimbursement was given to him. Documents of SMS Hospital,Jaipur and Monilek Hospital, Jaipur were submitted but all these documents could not show any fact as regard to health of the deceased at the time of the purchase of policy as these documents were of the period after the purchase of the policy and further more none of the documents has contained any history of old disease of kidney. Cause of death has also not been brought on record. None of the documents has been submitted which could show that the insured was suffering from any disease prior to taking of the policy. Hence, the claim has rightly been allowed.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm