(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 5.11.1998 of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram dismissing appeal filed against the order dated 31.8.1998 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant was dismissed.
(2.) Husband of the petitioner had purchased policy for Rs. 50,000/- which commenced from 21.5.1993 and was to mature on 21.5.2013, from Life Insurance Corporation of India-respondent opposite party. Life assured died on 16.1.1996. Petitioner alleged that he died due to cardiac arrest. Petitioner filed Petition No. 14686 of 1996 before the Kerala High Court which was disposed of with direction to the respondent-opposite party to take decision on the claim made within two months. After claim was repudiated, the petitioner alleging deficiency in service filed complaint which was contested by the respondent. It was alleged that as the life assured had died within a short period of the taking of policy, the respondent got an investigation made which revealed that the assured had undergone tumour decompression surgery on 20.8.1992 at the Neurological Department, Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. Post-operative radiation was given to him from 3.9.1992 to 9.10.1992. At the time of filling proposal form, this material fact was suppressed by the life assured. Holding that there was suppression of said material fact by the life assured, the complaint was dismissed by District Forum which order was upheld by the State Commission.
(3.) Contention advanced by Ms. M.L. Shyjatha for petitioner was that even if the life assured had not disclosed that he had undergone tumour decompression surgery on 20.8.1992 and further undergone post-operative radiation from 3.9.1992 to 9.10.1992, it would not have any effect as regards liability to pay the claim under the policy as the life assured had died due to cardiac arrest. Further, as the amount for which policy was taken was meagre the non-disclosure of said fact was hardly material. Order of State Commission notices that in the petition filed before High Court of Kerala, the petitioner had alleged that life assured had died due to brain tumour. Obviously, stand now taken that life assured had died because of cardiac arrest is an after-thought. Amount for which policy is taken has no relevance as regards disclosure of material fact in the proposal form. Both the Fora below had, thus, rightly dismissed the complaint/appeal on ground of suppression of said material fact by the life assured at the time of taking policy. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. R.P. dismissed.