IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Correct declarations - Had the Insured given correct declaration or answers to the aforesaid questions, the Insurance Company may have taken an informed decision as to whether he should be enrolled as a Member under the Group Insurance Scheme of the Master Policy, taken by the Bank, or not and if he has to be enrolled what should be the altered terms and premium therefor.
(2) Suppression of Material fact - There is suppression of material facts by the Insured and, for the reasons recorded in the Impugned Order, the State Commission is justified in holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the sum assured to the Complainant/Petitioner.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Original Complainant, the Petitioner herein, under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the Order dated 18.08.2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No.14/2016. The Appeal before the State Commission had been filed by SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Navi Mumbai and it’s Office at Hyderabad, arrayed as Respondents No. 2 and 3 in the present Revision Petition (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company), against the Order dated 30.11.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 204 of 2013, whereby the District Commission had allowed the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant/Petitioner herein, and directed the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.14,46,314/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim, i.e. 03.01.2013, till the date of realization as also costs of Rs.5,000/-. However, by the Impugned Order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Insurance Company, and set aside the Order passed by the District Commission. Consequently, the Complaint has also been dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that one D. Sai Kumar, husband of the Complainant/Petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as the Insured), had taken a housing loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Opposite Party/Respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and obtained risk cover of his life as a member through Group Insurance Scheme under Master Policy No. 93000001610 issued by the Insurance Company to the Bank and paid the single premium of Rs.1,02,300/- on 19.07.2010. The risk commenced from 17.08.2010 for an assured sum of Rs.15,85,300/- at inception. The Insured was issued a Certificate of Insurance with the said details. The Doctors of the Insurance Company had medically examined the Insured before granting insurance coverage and he was found to be in good health. The Insured died on 24.11.2012, leaving behind his wife (Complainant/Petitioner herein) and 3 daughters and the outstanding loan amount of Rs.14,46,314/- as on the date of his death. The Complainant/Petitioner being the nominee under the insurance policy applied to the Insurance Company for settlement of death claim of the Insured. However, the claim was repudiated on 28.02.2013 on the ground that the Insured had not disclosed the material facts with regard to his health. On 22.03.2013, the Complainant/Petitioner made a complaint/representation before the Review committee for reconsideration of the claim, whereupon the matter was referred to the Insurance Ombudsman, who also dismissed her complaint on 13.06.2013 without considering the medical record properly. This prompted the Complainant/Petitioner to file the afore-noted Complaint before the District Commission, inter alia, praying for a direction to pay the claim amount of Rs.15,85,300/- along with interest at the market rate and compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in lieu of physical pain, mental agony and trauma caused to her and three daughters.

3. Upon notice, the Bank filed the Written Version, admitting that the Insured had taken the housing loan and had also obtained risk cover of his life through Group Insurance Scheme from the Insurance Company and had paid the premium therefor. However, it was contended on behalf of the Bank that it had no liability to pay any compensation and the Complainant/Petitioner had to approach the Insurance Company, as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. The Insurance Ombudsman had also dismissed the complaint made by the Complainant/Petitioner.

4. The Insurance Company had also filed the Written Version, admitting that the deceased Insured had taken a housing loan from the