SARBJIT SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 19/8/2016 in First Appeal No. 1229 of 2015 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the 'State Commission') allowing the appeal against order dated of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, the 'District Forum') dtd. 5/10/2015 in Consumer Complaint no. 463 of 2014.

(2.) The facts as per the record are that Smt Harjit Kaur, wife of the petitioner was sanctioned a house building loan for Rs.9,63,445.00 by the respondent no. 1 and was also made a member of the SBI Life Dhanraksha Plus LPPT Policy after paying a premium of Rs.63,445.00. She expired on 10/6/2011 in Escort Hospital, Amritsar after a short illness. The claim of the petitioner/complainant was repudiated by the respondent/opposite party on the ground that the policy had been obtained by suppressing material evidence pertaining to pre-existing illnesses of the Deceased Life Assured (DLA). The complaint of the petitioner/complainant was allowed by the District Forum on the grounds that the policy was a requirement under the loan and had not been sought by the DLA of her own volition and that the policy was issued after due examination. The State Commission, however, upheld the appeal of the respondent/complainant on the ground that a policy of insurance obtained on the basis of false declaration of good health was a violation of 'utmost good faith' and therefore the order of the District Forum was set aside. The present revision petition impugns this order of the State Commission on the grounds that the order does not set out any valid and legal reasons; does not consider the fact that the DLA had not opted for the policy but had to necessarily take it on account of her having taken a house building loan from the respondent under a Proposer Master Policy; does not consider that the State Commission erred in concluding that the DLA had been suffering from diabetes and kidney disease for 4 years without any affidavit or affidavit/evidence from the doctor concerned and was therefore based on presumption. The judgment of this Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Swaraj Jain, (2008) 2 CPJ 59 wherein it was held that past history recorded in a hospital is not to be treated as primary evidence unless the doctor who recorded it was produced is relied upon. It was also averred that in a catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission had held that the burden of concealment lay on the insurance company and that in the absence of evidence/affidavit of the doctor or surveyor, the relevance of medical history would not lie as it would amount to hearsay evidence since the doctor was the only person to prove such a document on record.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent and given thoughtful consideration to the material on the record.