SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. BOBBILI ANASUYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the unsuccessful opposite party in CC 527/2006 on the file of the District Forum I, Visakhapatnam where under an order was passed directing to pay Rs.1,40,000/- with benefits if any covered by the policy in question and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs1000/-

(2.) The facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainants husband B. Ramalingam haD ensured his life by obtaining six polices from the Opposite party. While undergoing treatment in seven hills hospital he died on 28.2.2004. Prior to obtaining policy he never took any treatment and he never complained of ill health. The Opposite parties repudiated the claim in respect of the last three policies bearing Nos. 692633484, 692635176 and 673597498 alleging that the deceased had suppressed material information regarding his personal health. The repudiation of the claim is aributed as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(3.) The opposite party has resisted the claim by raising its defence that as per the medical book issued by the Steel Plant hospital , Visakhapatnam the life assured had taken treatment right from 1994. On 27.10.99 the life assured had taken ECG which revealed heart problem SINSZ and BP 170/130 which was diagnosed as inferolateral ischemia. He was admitted in the hospital on 18.4.2000 and discharged on 21.4.2000. It is mentioned in that record that it is an old case of hypertension with IHD with R R Hemparesis and also underwent CT scan. Again admitted on 24.7.2001 and discharged on 25.07.2001. The diagnosis was vertigo. Again admitted in March, 2003 and took treatment up to April, 2003. The assured in his answers to various questions in the proposal form has not mentioned the real state of affairs with regard to vital information about his health though he suffered from heart disease and hypertension. If he had disclosed the material facts, the OP would have called for special reports and decided to issue the policies. The repudiation is proper in respect of the three polices as the policies are invalid.