IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI Present Date of appeal filed: 19.04.2018 THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.62/2019 THURSDAY, THE 07th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 Smt.V.Saradha, W/o Late Mr.S.Veeraiah, Door No.4, New Door No.7, Venkalakadai Street, Madurai. Appellant/Complainant -Vs-

M/s.Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Limited, Represented through its Manager, RMJ Plaza 1^st Floor, 215A, Theni Road, P.P.Chavadi, Madurai – 625 016. Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Appellant/Opposite party : Mr.G.Ramapandian, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.V.Sakthivel, Advocate.

Aggrieved with the dismissal order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai made in C.C.No.185/2009, dated 07.03.2018 the complainant preferred this appeal. This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 09.10.2023 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (Open Court).

1. The Facts:

The complainant submitted that her husband one Mr.S.Veeraiah on

23.03.2004 took a Life Insurance Policy with the opposite party. The policy amount is Rs.50,000/- and the complainant’s husband died on 08.11.2004 at Meenakshi Mission Hospital due to Brain Stroke. When a claim was made the opposite party repudiated the claim on 18.03.2005 as if the complainant’s husband failed to disclose his pre-existing disease of Diabetic Mellitus. The above repudiation is not valid hence she filed the consumer complaint for alleging deficiency in service claiming the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- along with compensation for mental agony of Rs.50,000/- and also cost of the proceedings.

2. The opposite party filed their written version stating that the complainant’s husband failed to disclose his pre-existing disease, and they validly repudiated.

Hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3. The District Commission after perusal of both sides pleadings, documents, marked as Exhibits-A1 to A9, and Exhibits-B1 to B6, finally, dismissed the complaint. 4. Aggrieved with the above dismissal order, the appeal has been preferred by the complainant on the following:

Grounds: That, the District Commission failed to note that there was no failure to disclose the pre-existing disease. The District Commission failed to note her husband was died not because of diabetics when the diabetic is not the cause of death. The repudiation of claim is invalid and hence she prayed to allow the appeal.

5. In this case both sides filed their written arguments and perused by this Commission.

6. The learned counsel appeared in the opposite party/insurance company would submit that the agreement of insurance is also like any other contract and both parties should be bonafide to each other. But the complainant’s husband in the proposal form for a question about the pre-existing disease answered as ‘No’. Hence concealing the pre-existing disease made the contract ’abinitio void

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant would argued that the diabetic is not a root cause of death and the repudiation of claim is not valid.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the opposite party’s/insurance company’s repudiation of the claim is valid or not?

9. Discussion on the Point: It is an admitted fact that the complainant’s husband took a Life Insurance Policy on 23.03.2004. During the subsistence of Insurance Coverage her husband died on 08.11.2004. The opposite party submitted Exhibit-B1 Proposal Form in which for a question related to pre-existing disease the complainant’s husband answered as ‘No’ which is reproduced here under:

10. After the claim was made, the surveyor submitted his report along with Medical