Page 44 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 44

Commission, the petitioner / complainant is before this Commission by way of the
present revision petition.
4. The main question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to
whether the deceased was suffering from breast cancer either at the time she took the
policy or at the time she got the said policy revived. The policy was obtained on
08.11.1991, whereas its revival was obtained on 29.1.1993.
5. The petitioner / complainant himself has filed a letter dated 08.11.1996 sent
by him to the respondent. In the aforesaid letter, he inter-alia stated that in August,
1982 / 1992 his wife developed a cyst in her armpit for which she was initially treated
by private doctors but later at Tata Memorial Hospital where she was operated. It was
further stated in the aforesaid letter that in ‗July, 1983‘, she lost her appetite and her
eyes turned yellow and she was treated for Jaundice and thereafter, she was under
treatment of a doctor in Agra for about two months, till she expired on 17.9.1993.
However, in the English translation of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner has given the
time when the deceased lost her appetite as July, 1993. Even if it is assumed for the
sake of arguments that the deceased was operated at Tata Memorial Hospital in or
around August, 1992, the declaration submitted by her while seeking revival of the
insurance policy on29.1.1993 was patently false since she did not disclose at that time
that she had been operated for breast cancer at Tata Memorial Hospital and she
claimed to be in a good state of health. As far as the record of Tata Memorial Hospi-
tal is concerned, the respondent could not produce the same since the said record was
not traceable as informed by the hospital vide its letter dated 07.12.1998. Even in his
affidavit by way of evidence, the complainant did not claim that the breast cancer was
detected after the deceased had obtained the revival of her insurance policy on
29.1.1993. He rather chose to altogether deny the treatment of the deceased at Tata
Memorial Hospital. No record of the treatment of the deceased at Tata Memorial
Hospital has been produced to prove that her treatment in the aforesaid hospital was
undertaken after 29.1.1993. A perusal of the letter dated 02.6.1997 sent by the com-
plainant to the insurer would show that the treatment of the deceased in August, 1992
was expressly admitted by him in the aforesaid letter. He expressly wrote to the in-
surer that in August, 1992 they had come back from the hospital after the surgery of
the deceased Shiva Dubey. No record from the Tata Memorial Hospital or elsewhere
has been produced by the complainant to prove that the deceased has fully recovered
after her surgery at Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai. No discharge summary has
been filed by him though such a summary is provided by every hospital to every pa-
tient undergoing surgery as an Indoor Patient.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that the
deceased was still suffering from cancer at the time she obtained renewal of the insur-
ance policy on 29.1.1993. The view taken by the State Commission therefore does
not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdic-
tion. The revision petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed with no
order as to costs.

......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER

INDEX