IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance : Repudiation of Claim : Person who affixes his signature to proposal which contains statement which is not true, cannot ordinarily escape from consequences arising therefrom by pleading that he chose to sign the proposal containing such statement without either reading or understanding it.

ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in First Appeal No. 284/2017 vide which, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed, and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was affirmed.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant’s husband took two life insurance Policies from the Petitioner/Opposite Party to ensure financial provision for the marriage of his daughters, appointing them as his nominees under the Policies. At the time of canvassing for the Insurance Policies, whatever questions were asked by the Agent were fully and correctly answered by the Complainant’s husband, which were noted by the Agents on a blank paper. However, the Agent insisted on signing the blank Proposal Forms for the Policies, stating that due to the year-end rush period, he could not complete everything on the spot andwould fill in the Forms later based on the provided information.

Subsequently, a full medical examination was conducted on the Complainant’s husband by a Senior Medical Examiner of the Opposite Party at his Clinic, and only on the basis of this report, the proposals for the Policies accepted and the Policies issued. Unfortunately, on 22.10.2001, the Complainant’s husband passed away due to acute abdominal pain at the age of just 33 years, leaving behind his two daughters. The Complainant, being the Nominee for her minor daughters, informed the Petitioner about the death and claimed the insured amount by sending all the requisite documents for processing the Claim. However, to the Complainant’s utter shock, after about 3 years from the date of submission of Claim papers, she received a repudiation letter on 09.06.2004. The repudiation was based on the allegation of suppression of material facts, specifically that her husband was suffering from chronic alcoholism, which was the direct cause of death. Aggrieved by the wrongful repudiation by the Petitioner, the Complainant filed her Complaint before the Ld. District Forum (West), Delhi.

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 23.03.2017 allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay the Complainant the sum assured amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-of both the Policies with interest @9% p.a from 11.11.2001 till the date of realization along with Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony. The Petitioner then filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which dismissed the same and upheld the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -

“12. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. Firstly, there is delay of 20 days in filing the appeal for which application for condonation of delay has been moved. The plea of the appellant is that Divisional Officer sent copy of order to Manager (L& HPF) for getting information. The legal department opined in favour of filing appeal after which it was directed to file an appeal. On 11.05.2017 the counsel was given papers to file appeal. On 22.05.2017 counsel prepared the draft of the appeal, sent it to appellant for vetting. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned.

13. On merits counsel for appellant drew my attention towards history sheet of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital which at page-73. The same shows that Sh. Prem Prakash Aggarwal, 33 years male was non diabetic, chronic alcoholic who complained of pain in abdominal and recurrent vomiting for two days. CT scan of abdominal reveals AC pancreatitis, extension changes. On the basis of this OPs wanted me to hold that deceased was habitual drinker. I am unable to agree. It was so, medical officer of appellant should have reported the same at the time of examination before issuance of policies. Medical examination was done hardly eight month before death.

14. Moreover, initially the appellant informed the respondent that polices were under “Marriage” plan and assured sum would b