B JAYAMMA Vs. LIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent, L.I.C. of India. 2. Brief facts of the case are that her deceased father had obtained an Endowment Assurance PoLicy with Profits (with accident benefit) from the respondent for Rs. 25,000/-. The poLicy was to run for a period of 10 years. This poLicy was issued by respondent after payment of premium on 14.12.1991. Since subsequent premiums were not paid, the poLicy lapsed, which was revived after paying the 3 instalments for the lapsed period along with interest, after which PoLicy was revived effective from 7.12.1993 after a fresh medical examination.

(2.) THE insured died on 23.2.1993 i.e., within 14 days of the revival of the PoLicy. When the complainant, who is the heir of the deceased insured, claimed the insured amount, the respondent did not honour the commitment. It is in these circumstances that a complaint came to be filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondents. After filing a complaint, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the insured had made an incorrect statement and withheld correct information from the respondent regarding his health at the time of taking insurance cover as well as at the time of revival of the PoLicy. The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 18% from 28.5.1993 till the date of payment and as also cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by this order the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission who after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the petitioner has filed this revision before us. 3. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and find that it cannot be disputed that initially the deceased had obtained a PoLicy effective from 14.12.1991 and it was revived only on 11.2.1993 after payment of 3 premiums along with interest for the lapsed period. So clearly as attempted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this case is not covered by Section 45 of the Insurance Act as the facts relating to supply of incorrect information is within a period of 2 years.

(3.) IN view of above, it is quite clear that this particular statement completely punctures the evidence of the complainant that the deceased was examined in any real sense by doctor at the time of revival of the poLicy. Dr. Subrahmanyam's affidavit and certificate remain unrebutted and it is quite clear that deceased has been suffering from COPD for the last 10 years which he has concealed at the time of giving poLicy and this information came to the knowledge of the respondent within a period of 2 years. They were quite correct in rebutting the claim of the complainant keeping in view the provision under Section 45 of the Insurance Act. However, keeping in view the circumstances of the case the LIC could consider grant of an ex gratia payment to the complainant. 5. In view of above, we find no merit in the Revision Petition filed before us and order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference, hence this Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.