Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant’s husband by name Govindaraj had taken a insurance policy for Rs. 50,000/- in his name on 30.11.1994 in Policy No. 711810165. He was employed at SDOT/Phones/Tiruvallur. He took ill and was admitted in Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Chennai. He died on 21.9.1996. The complainant preferred a claim to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have repudiated their liability stating that the deceased suppressed the vital information. The complainant preferred a revision to the Zonal Manager against the repudiation and the Claim Review Committee upheld the repudiation. The repudiation by the opposite parties is illegal and it amounts to deficiency in service. There is no proof that the complainant was under treatment for any illness and so without any basis, the opposite parties have repudiated the claim. Hence, this complaint.

2. The opposite parties submitted as follows: It is true to say that Govindaraj had taken a life insurance policy on 20.11.1994 for Rs. 50,000/-. He died on 21.9.1996. It being an early claim, the Corporation initiated inquiry and the inquiry revealed that the