Padma Pandey, Member1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30.07.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, with no order as to cost, filed by the complainant (now appellant).2. In brief, the facts of the case, are thatSh. Sajjan Singh, deceased husband of the complainant, had purchased a life insurance policy from the Opposite Party bearing No.165199573 under table No.162 for a term of 20 years vide proposal form dated 05.05.2013. It was stated that thedate of commencement was 08.05.2013, sum assured was Rs.7,00,000/- and the annual premium was Rs.7,436/-. It was further stated that the deceased, Sh. Sajjan Singh had purchased another policy bearing No.165199572 under table No.165 for a term of 21 years vide proposal form dated 05.05.2013. It was further stated that the date of commencement was 08.05.2013, sum assured was Rs.3,00,000/- and the annual premium was Rs.14,112/ and the complainant, being his wife, happened to be the nominee. It was further stated that on 08.06.2013, husband of the complainant became unconscious and was rushed to PGI, Chandigarh, but, he could not be saved and died on the same day. It was further stated that the claim due under the policies was submitted to the Opposite Party, but, the same was repudiated vide letters dated 31.03.2014 (Annexures C-3 & C-4) on the ground, there were concealment of material facts in the proposal forms of the deceased Sh. Sajjan Singh viz. the disease of cancer. It was further stated that no such terms and conditions were apprised to her deceased husband at the time of purchasing the policies. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and filed the complaint, and prayed for recovery of sum due under the policies i.e. Rs.10.00 lakhs alongwith interest, compensation and costs of litigation.3. The Opposite Party filed its reply and raised preliminary objections of locus standi. It was stated that at the time of purchase of the policies the deceased Sh. Sajjan Singh was suffering from acute leukemiai.e. cancer, one or two months prior to the purchase date of the policies and he had concealed this fact. It was further stated that the deceased Sh. Sajjan Singh had also concealed the fact that he was a chronic alcoholic for 15 years and at the time of treatment detected a case of easy fatigability for 6-7 months. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, and remaining averments, were denied, being wrong, on the part of the Opposite Party.4. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 30.07.2018.8. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.10. From the record i.e. the certificate of the hospital at Annexure R-1, we find that the deceasedSh. Sajjan Singh was admitted on 08.06.2013 i.e. after about one month from the date of purchase of the policies. On admission to the hospital, he had complained of easy fatigability for the last six to seven months and when he was treated, he was diagnosed with acute leukemia i.e., a type of cancer which was fatal in its nature. In fact, the cancer was in the last and stage IV, after which death is inevitable. It is also to be noted here that acute cancer does not develop overnight. The cancer has been developing in the body of the deceased for a long time and therefore, on the date of purchase of the policies i.e. 05.05.2013, the deceased was having adequate knowledge of the disease and he was undergoing treatment which has been concealed by the deceased at the time of taking the policy. Further PGI, Chandigarh, in the certificate of the hospital treatment had mentioned that the deceased was alcoholic for the last fifteen years, whereas this particular act was also concealed by the deceased while filling up the proposal form. From all these records, we find that there was huge concealment from the side of the deceased and the insurance company was kept in dark about these facts. In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that the said appeal is not maintainable before this Commission and the learned Forum had rightly dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the said appeal is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to cost.11. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the Opposite Party, was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Parties.13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the appeal, is also disposed of, being infructuous.14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.