S.C. Vyas, President—Order dated 01.09.08, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) in complaint case No.358/07 is under challenge in this appeal, whereby the complaint was allowed.

2. It is not in dispute that deceased Jugal Kishor Rathi was insured by the appellant and five insurance polices were issued in his favour. Out of which sum of four polices have been paid and the insurance amount of last policy Rs.1,00,000/- detained on the ground that fact regarding serious ailment of diabetes was concealed by the deceased while making proposal for insurance. When the claim of insurance was repudiated and insurance amount was not paid then complaint was filed by the respondent before District Forum.

3. The appellant/OP in the written version reiterated the fact that the deceased was suffering from diabetes for around five years and had concealed this fact at the time of making proposal for insurance. The matter was adjudicated by the District Forum and ultimately award was passed in favour of the respondent.

4. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.

5. Apart from admission ticket of the deceased dated 27.9.03 of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, there appears no other material to show that he was suffering from diabetes since before. This admission ticket shows that he was admitted in the hospital on that date at 7:00 p.m. and died at 7:15 p.m. During entire period of his admission in the Hospital he remained unconscious and was not in a position to provide any information regarding his previous illness, whatever has been written in this admission card by treating doctor was only on the basis of information given by someone else, but that person is also not known as nobody has been named in the paper as a person who has given information regarding diabetes. The person who has prepared this admission ticket was so casual, as at the place of deceased Jugal Kishor Rathi, name of some M.R. Rathi has been written. It is worth mentioning that Mayur Rathi is the complainant and son of the deceased. It indicates that at the time of making entries in this admission ticket everybody was in much hurry and was interested in providing and getting treatment to the deceased. When entries were made in such situation, then there is every possibility some mistakes either in giving information or in recording information, as apparent from the name of the deceased. Therefore, it is difficult to draw any conclusion regarding previous disease, on the basis of entries in this admission ticket. The information was not given by the deceased or it was not provided on the instructions of the deceased and so it cannot be held that he was suffering from diabetes from a date which was prior to the date of making proposal for insurance. No case of suppression of material information at the time of making proposal for insurance is made out. We find that learned District Forum has not committed any mistake in passing award against the appellant Insurance Corporation.

6. Thus on the basis of aforesaid discussion we find that this appeal does not have any substance and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

*********

ARTICLE

HOUSING SERVICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW

Judicial Response

Mushtaq Ahmad*

ABSTRACT

The definition of ‘service’ had already been kept very wide and now with the inclusion of ‘housing construction’ by the C.P. (Amendment) Act, 1993 it has been further widened. The term ‘service’ not only covers private sector services but also services rendered by the public sector undertakings. The entire purpose of widening the definition of service is to include in it not only day-to-day buying of goods by a common man but even such activities which are otherwise not commercial but professional or service oriented in nature. The development authority, while developing the land or framing a scheme for housing discharg