Page 103 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 103

4. The District Forum, Fatehabad on appreciation of the evidence allowed the
complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party as under: -
―Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we allow the present
complaint directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant with in-
terest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization of the
amount within one month. The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-
as litigation expenses, harassment and mental agony etc. Order be complied within
one month failing which the complainant is at liberty to initiate proceeding against
the OPs under Section 25/27 of the C.P. Act. A copy of this order be supplied to
both the parties free of costs. File be consigned after due compliance.‖
5. The opposite party insurance company being aggrieved approached the State
Commission, Haryana in appeal. The State Commission on re-appreciation of evi-
dence vide impugned order came to the conclusion that the insurance policy was ob-
tained by the insured by concealing material fact regarding his previous ailments.
Accordingly, it was held that the repudiation was justified and the appeal was al-
lowed. The relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under: -
―This argument is devoid of any force. It is well settled that Evidence Act,
1872 (in short ―Evidence Act) is not strictly applicable in consumer complaints as
per view of Hon‘ble National Commission in first appeal No.512 of 2013 titled as
Sheela R. Ohri vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance decided on 11.11.2014.
Documents are not to be proved as in the civil cases. Es.R-14 is the application
submitted by wife of deceased before Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad and it is
obtained from the office. Ex. R-5 is the copy of the treatment received at General
Hospital, Fatehabad which is also attested by the doctor. This is public document
and there is no necessity to call the doctor to prove the same. Complainant has
nowhere alleged that this application was not moved by the wife of the deceased
or that Bedhead ticket Ex.R-5 is not pertaining to his father. Learned District Fo-
rum fell in error while ignoring these documents. As per these documents it is
clear that DLA was suffering from this ailment since 11.7.2012 and concealed this
fact when proposal form was submitted on 29.9.2012. When complainant con-
cealed this fact, he is not titled for claim.‖
6. On reading of the above, it is clear that motivating factor for the State Com-
mission to conclude that insured had obtained insurance policy by concealment of his
previous ailment i.e. diabetes mellitus and Palloor on the basis of the information con-
tained in the documents marked as Ex. R-4 & R-5 on the record, namely, the applica-
tion submitted by wife of the deceased insured to the Deputy Commissioner Fateha-
bad and the attested copy of the record of the treatment of the deceased at General
Hospital Fatehabad duly attested by the doctor. The only contention of learned coun-
sel for the petitioner is that State Commission has committed a grave error on relying
upon the information contained in the aforesaid documents ignoring the fact that cop-
ies placed on record were not properly proved.
7. We do not find merit in the above contention for the reason that as per the
scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer disputes are to be decided
summarily. Therefore, technical rules of CPC and Evidence Act are not applicable to
the consumer cases provided the principles of natural justice are followed. Otherwise
also, original of Ex. R-4 was submitted by wife of the deceased to the Deputy Com-

INDEX