Page 134 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 134

of Dr. Prahlad Garg and Discharge Summary of City Hospital as
those documents have not been proved by the primary evidence

i.e. by examining Dr. Prahlad Garg or the witness from the City
Hospital - We do not find merit in this contention for the reason

that proceedings before the consumer fora are summary proceed-

ings in which strict technical rules of procedure and evidence are
not applicable - Otherwise also, the petitioner has not shown any-

thing on the record that he in his evidence denied correctness of

prescription slip and the discharge summary - It is also argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner that recording of previous his-

tory of Diabetes Mellitus does not mean that aforesaid opinion
was given by the petitioner or that he was aware of his ailment -

We do not find merit in this contention - Both doctor Prahlad
Garg and the concerned doctor of City Hospital have recorded

about the previous history of Diabetes Mellitus of the patient -

This history obviously must have been given by the petitioner
himself or his friend / relative, who took him to the doctor con-

cerned or the hospital - Therefore, there is no reason to suspect
that concerned doctors of their own have recorded the previous

history – Claim rightly repudiated. ...85
Evidence – Photo copies - Evidence in appeal - Plea the insured was an

alcoholic and was diagnosed with alcohol lever disease and its

complications, based upon certain photocopies of the record pur-
porting to be a Government Medical College & Hospital,

Chandigarh in respect of the deceased - It is an admitted posi-

tion that no doctor who may have treated or examined the insured

INDEX