ORDER Mr. Surinder Sarup, J. (Retd.) President: This appeal is against the order of the learned District Forum, Shimla, Camp at Nahan, dated 14.3.2002, whereby the appellant has been directed to indemnify the complainants/respondents to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 20.7.2001 plus litigation cost of Rs. 500/-.

2. The late Daulat Ram Khera was insured by the appellant for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. After he had paid two installments of the premium, in respect of his insurance policy, he died on 14.12.1999. The respondents, being his legal heirs, field a claim for payment of the insured amount which was rejected and resulted in filing of the complaint by them. In the reply, the only defence was that the insured had pre-insurance medical history, being a chronic alcoholic which caused his premature death also, and this significant fact had been withheld by him at the time of filing of the proposal from for getting himself insured with the appellant.

3. The learned Forum below relied on a decision of the Supreme Court referred to in para-4 of the impugned order and also recorded a finding that once the appellant had issued the insurance policy in favour of the deceased, after issuing the report of the doctor on its approved panel who had medically examined the deceased before he was insured, it cannot escape its liability from indemnifying the complaints being his legal heirs.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on the document, Annexure R-111, which was filed alongwith the reply to the complaint and is a piece of evidence on the record. The same has been issued by the Divisional Office, Chandigarh of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.) on the basis of the Hospital record vide C.R. No. 215306 regarding the treatment of the deceased in the Department of Gastroenterology, P.G.I. According to the same, the deceased was a heavy alcohol consumer and chain smoker. He was suffering from hypertension also. During the pendency of the appeal, an opportunity was given to the learned Counsel for the appellant to file the affidavit of a concerned Official explaining the circumstances of the source from which the said document Annexure R-111, was obtained by the complainant Smt. Kiran Khera, widow of the deceased. Consequently, affidavit of one Shri S.C. Dhingra, Manager (L&H PF), L.I.C, Divisional Office, Kasumpti, Shimla, was filed in which it was deposed that the record of medical history vide Annexure R-111 was submitted by the claimant Smt. Kiran Khera after getting the same filled from P.G.I., Chandigarh and the same was submitted by her to the L.I.C. Branch Office, Nahan, for consideration of her claim. As against this a counter-affidavit of the said Smt. Kiran Khera has also been filed in which it has been deposed specifically denying that the medical history as mentioned in Form No. 3816, Annexure R-111 was submitted by her as alleged and that the allegations to this effect are false and concocted. It has also been deposed that it is common knowledge that information regards a patient with the P.G.I., Chandigarh being of a confidential nature, no person, not even the patient is supplied the same by the Hospital authorities. Moreover, the documents, Annexure R-111, was not issued from the Divisional Office of the appellant-L.I.C. at Kasumpti, Shimla, but from the Divisional Office, Chandigarh, as stated therein. Therefore, it has also been deposed by Smt. Kiran Khera in her affidavit that the person swearing the affidavit i.e. Sh. S.C. Dhingra is not competent to depose as regards its origin or the source from which it surfaced.

5. In the above situation, we are confronted with two affidavits, both stating absolutely divergent facts as regards the source of production of Annexure R-111. Therefore, the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily show as to how the same was obtained by its Divisional Office, Chandig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document