ANGOORI DEVI Vs. LIC OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order dated 3.1.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (the State Commission) Vide the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation against the order dated 4.2.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (the District Forum). The District Forum had allowed the complaint of the petitioner herein and directed the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000 alongwith other benefits and interest @ 15% per annum from 5.1.2002, in addition a sum of Rs. 5,000 also awarded to the petitioner towards cost and compensation.

(2.) The consumer dispute in this case related to the non -settlement of the insurance claim in respect of Late Shri Mahabir Prashad Aggarwal R/o Village -Sarsana Tehsil, Distt. Hisar, who had obtained a life insurance policy in the sum of Rs. 50,000 w.e.f. 28.5.1999. He had expired on 5.10.1999 i.e. within about five months of taking the policy. The insurance company repudiated the claim primarily on the ground that at the time of taking the insurance policy, the deceased had wilfully suppressed the information in regard to he have been suffering from a chronic renal disease for which he remained admitted in a certain hospital from 25.9.1997 and had undertaken hemodialysis The Insurance Company could establish the pre -existing disease by means of cogent hospital record. The District Forum, however, in total disregard and improper appreciation of the evidence brought on record allowed the claim of the petitioner holding the Insurance Company was deficient in its services. The State Commission in appeal however straightened the said order and dismissed the complaint and, in our opinion, rightly so. In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls interference by this Commission.

(3.) Ordinarily we would have burdened such petitioner with cost but going by the fact that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased who died on account of a certain ailment, we do not propose to impose cost on the petitioner. Revision dismissed.