The burden of proof lies on the insurer to establish material concealment by the insured, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12(1)(b).

ORDER

Bhanwar Singh, President (Oral)- Case called out. Mr. Vineet Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellants is present and he seeks adjournment to which Mr. S.K. Sharma does not agree in view of two earlier adjournments sought by Mr. Vineet Srivastava one on 12.12.2008 and the other on 5.1.2009. Therefore, the request for adjournment is declined.

2. We have heard Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. By means of the impugned judgment dated 20.1.2006, the District Consumer Forum, Hardoi has allowed the respondent's complaint thereby directing the Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay to her the insured amounts of four life insurance policies of the deceased Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh. Mr. Singh had acquired four insurance policies during his life-time, the details of which may be furnished as follows:

3. It would be relevant to note that the first two policies lapsed but revived on 31.8.1998 and 25.9.2000 respectively. In other words, all the four polices were operational on the date on which Sri Ravindra Pal Singh died i.e., October 23, 2001. The Life Insurance Corporation did not honour its commitment as laid under the terms and conditions of the policies, rather kept the matter pending for four years altogether and pleaded in its written statement filed before the Forum below that the claim of the respondent on account of all the four policies could not be entertained as there was material concealment on the part of the deceased. Narrating the details of the alleged material concealment, the Life Insurance Corporation submitted that deceased suffered from the kidney disease prior to the date of revival of the two polices obtained in the years 1992 and 1999. However, the Life Insurance Corporation could not produce any evidence before the Forum below whereby it would have been established that the deceased was at any point of time suffering from the renal problem. Neither there was any medical prescription nor a certificate of any doctor relied, in support of its contention. The appellant has filed few documents along with affidavit of Sri B.P. Tewari clearly admitting therein that these documents could not be filed before the Forum below.

4. At this stage Mr. Vineet Srivastava has resumed his arguments and referred to the Medical Attendant's certificate paper No. 18, in column 6 of which two dates are mentioned. These are 15.5.2001 and 8.6.2001. Perhaps, recital of these dates referred to the history commencing from the first date of disease having struck to the deceased. Both these dates fall subsequent to the date of four policies having been revived and acquired. To be specific two policies of Rs. 15,000.00 and Rs. 75,000.00 were revived long before the date of commencement of the medical history and revival of the respective policies took place on 31.7.1998 and 25.9.2000. The other two policies of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and Rs. 1,40,000.00 had admittedly been acquired on 28.3.2001. Obviously, thus, this history cannot be referred to the pre-policy period. There is no other documentary evidence on record to show that the deceased was suffering from either kidney problem or liver problem.

5. Mr. Vineet Srivastava, who has appeared for the L.I.C., has also referred to the chart of the medical and sick leave pertaining to the deceased. This chart was issued on 6.9.2004 by the Avadh Gramin Bank wherein the deceased was serving prior to his death. No doubt this chart indicates that the deceased had availed of sick leave and other kind of leave some times for long intervals but this alone is not sufficient to prove that he was a patient of liver or renal failure. Mr. Vineet