L I C OF INDIA Vs. PARVEEN DHINGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order passed by the State Commission allowing the appeal against the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ashok Dhingra had taken two Insurance Policies dated 28.1.1980 for Rs. 10,000/- and another one dated 28.7.1992 for Rs. 25,000/-. Both these policies lapsed in the year 1992 for non-payment of premium. These policies were got revived by the deceased on 8.9.1993 and 9.3.1994, the insured Ashok Dhingra died on 9.10.1994 and upon filing a claim in L.I.C. by his wife, it was repudiated on the ground that the insurer was suffering from liver disease and had suppressed information of his ailment at the time of revival of policies. It is in these circumstances that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum who after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint while agreeing with the petitioner/respondent of the deceased having suppressed the fact of his ailment at the time of revival of the policy. On appeal being filed by the respondent/complainant, it was allowed and order of the District Forum was set aside on the ground that Section 45 of the Insurance Act favours the complainant. The petitioner not being satisfied with this order filed this revision petition before us.

(3.) It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Joy Basu that there is no denying the fact that the complainant had been in and out of hospital, was frequently on sick leave and other leaves during 1992, 1993 and 1994 as per record of his employer, which is also on record before this Commission; it is also not in dispute that at the time of revival of policies, a fresh form was filed in which the complainant denied his having any ailment. According to him the judgments relied upon by the State Commission deal with illness which were not within the knowledge of the insured. This is not the case here. Since the deceased knowingly suppressed the fact of illness in the form filled in at the time of revival policy. It is a violation of the terms of the policy. The State Commission erred on this fact and arrived at an erroneous conclusion hence need to be set aside. The other side's plea is that the State Commission was right in holding that they are protected by Section 45 of the Insurance Act. Any information found to be incorrect after two years of taking the policy even while the policy is revived - does not prejudice the case of the complainant. For this he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithoolal Nayak v. L.I.C. in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 814 (VU 9 C 117).