LIC OF INDIA THROUGH KL VIRMANI, ASST SECRETARY LIC INDIA CIRCLE OFFICE LEGAL CELL DELHI Vs. AMRUTBEN MOHANBHAI PARMAR (DEAD BY L.RS.) R/P PARMAR NIVAS, RAIYA RAJKOT GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short "the Insurance Company") calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 12.10.2011, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1248 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 24.06.2008, passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 304 of 2005. By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Legal Heirs of the Insured, namely, Mohanbhai Muljibhai Parmar, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim preferred by them against the life insurance policy obtained by the Insured in the assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the application, i.e. 31.12.2005, till realization, along with a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3,000.00 as costs of litigation.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Arunav Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, and taken into consideration the written submissions received from the Complainants through post.

(3.) The short question for consideration in the present Revision Petition is whether the Insured had made a wrong declaration with respect to pre-existing ailments pertaining to liver, stomach, heart, lungs, kidney, brain and nervous system and failed to furnish information relating to certain diseases, mentioned in the column pertaining to the personal history. It may be noted at this juncture itself that the claim preferred by the Complainants was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the Insured had failed to disclose the diseases he was suffering at the time of obtaining the policy.