JAGANNATH BHAGAT Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986")) has been filed by the appellants against order dated 11. 9. 1997 passed by the District Forum, Bikaner by which the complaint of the respondent was allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay the sum assured under the policy of the complainant's wife with all benefits within a period of one month.

(2.) THE necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : the complainant respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Bikaner inter alia stating that Mrs. Krishna devi (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was his wife and she had taken a policy of Rs. 1 lakh from the appellants which had commenced from 28. 5. 1995 and in that policy the complainant respondent was the nominee. The further case of the complainant respondent was that the deceased had expired on 27. 8. 1996 and thereafter the respondent complainant has lodged a claim with the appellants which was repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 10. 3. 1997 inter alia stating that since the deceased was suffering from asthama and hip joint for which she had consulted a medical man and had taken treatment and since that facts were not disclosed in the proposal form, therefore, it was a case of suppression of material facts. After that complainant respondent had filed the present complaint before the District Forum, Bikaner. A reply was filed by the appellants and their case was that the claim of the complainant respondent was rightly repudiated by them through letter dated 10. 3. 1997 and the grounds of that letter have already been mentioned above. It was further stated by the appellants in the reply that on investigation it was revealed that the deceased had taken the treatment from Bombay Hospital, Bombay where she had admitted on 16. 8. 1996 and had died on 27. 8. 1996 and the cause of death was Cardio Respiratory Failure Due to Pulmonary embolism in a operated case of right side total hip replacement. Hence, no case. Complaint be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum, Bikaner allowed the complaint of the complainant respondent inter alia holding that the claim of the present policy should have been allowed and thus the claim of the complainant respondent was wrongly repudiated by the appellants. Aggrieved from the said order dated 11. 9. 1997 passed by the District Forum, Bikaner, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

(3.) IN this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that since the deceased was suffering from serious sickness and for which she had taken treatment from Bombay Hospital and since she had not mentioned that fact in the declaration form which was filled in up by the deceased on 28. 3. 1996, therefore, appellants had legal right to repudiate the claim and thus findings given by the District Forum by accepting the claim are erroneous one and should be set aside.