Page 133 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 133

lapse of more than 1½ years after the death of the deceased stat-
ing that he had not treated the deceased - The petitioner even in

her notice dated 19.05.2011 was silent in regard to the certificate
issued by the Doctor to the opposite party and filed the complaint

only after obtaining the letter from the Doctor - In his cross ex-

amination the Doctor has admitted that he had kept no records of
the treatment given at his clinic - He could not produce the OPD

Register, hence, it is not clear on what basis he had issued the

certificate on 07.06.2011 that life assured had not taken treatment
at his Nursing Home - While admittedly the certificate dated

18.06.2010 certifying that Life Assured had taken treatment in his
OPD was based on the lab report dated 04.05.2009 which was

conducted on his reference. ...59
Evidence - Lab reports – The report of the urine test of the deceased

clearly shows that he had tested positive for sugar and albumin

which would indicate that he was suffering from diabetes, and
kidney failure - His Serum level was also high - The State Com-

mission had correctly concluded that if the Doctor‘s evidence is
not considered, the petitioner/ complainant had failed to rebut the

laboratory report which clinches the fact that the insured was dia-
betic as the urine sugar and albumin had been shown abnormal

values. ...59

Evidence - Summary proceedings - Dr. or the witness from the Hospital
not produced – Recording of previous history in prescription slip

and the discharge summary - Contention that State Commission

has committed a grave error in relying upon the prescription slip

INDEX