Page 132 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 132

Evidence - CPC and Evidence Act - Insured had obtained insurance pol-
icy by concealment of his previous ailment i.e. diabetes mellitus

and Palloor on the basis of the information contained in the appli-
cation submitted by wife of the deceased insured to the Deputy

Commissioner Fatehabad and the attested copy of the record of

the treatment of the deceased at General Hospital Fatehabad duly
attested by the doctor - Contention that State Commission has

committed a grave error on relying upon the information con-

tained in the aforesaid documents ignoring the fact that copies
placed on record were not properly proved - As per the scheme of

the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer disputes are to be de-
cided summarily - Therefore, technical rules of CPC and Evi-

dence Act are not applicable to the consumer cases provided the
principles of natural justice are followed - Otherwise also, origi-

nal of Ex. R-4 was submitted by wife of the deceased to the Dep-

uty Commissioner Fatehabad. ...101
Evidence - Lab reports – Letter of doctor that no treatment given by him

- Survey report - Lab report placed on file that it was done on the
reference of Dr K, the same doctor who had first issued the cer-

tificate on 18.06.2010 that LA was under his treatment - In the
affidavit filed on behalf of the OP nos. 1 and 2 they have submit-

ted that the complaint was repudiated and the intimation sent to

the complainant on 12.07.2010 - The petitioner/ complainant
kept silent till 2011 and thereafter issued a legal notice. The peti-

tioner thus kept silent for 11 months after repudiation and got is-

sued the notice obtained the second letter from the doctor after a

INDEX