ORAL ORDER:

PER: Mr JUSTICE T G SHMSHANKARE GOWDA:PRESIDENT

This Appeal is filed U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant (herein after referred to as 'the OP'), challenging the Order dated t7.OL.2Ol4 passed in Consumer Complaint No'55/2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koppal (in short'District Commission').

The Appellant was the Complainant and , Basavannemma, the mother of the Complainant, during Respondent was the OP before the District Commission' For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

The brief facts of the case are that; one Smt. her life time, on 17.08.2012, submitted a proposal to the OP for an insurance PolicY for Sum Assured Rs.5,00,000/-. Her proposal was accePted and policy was issued on 18.08.2012 vide policy bearing No.278349720. Smt. Basavennemma was died on 08.03.2013 due to heart attack. Hence, the Complainant being nominee to the said policy submitted a claim to the OP. On 25.07.2013, OP has repudiated the claim on the ground of suppression of material facts stating that the deceased had previously undergone coronary artery surgery, pleading deficiency in service, Complainant has filed the complaint.

Before the District Commission, the OP has opposed the Complaint by filing its version, contending that the deceased had underwent coronary heaft surgery at Fofties Hospital, six months prior to submitting the proposal for policy and had suppressed the previous ailments. Therefore, claim was repudiated, there is no deficiency in service and sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

The District Commission after hearing the arguments of both the pafties, by impugned order held that there is suppression of material facts, as the deceased had undergone open heart surgery at Fortis Hospital, within six months prior to the proposal and not disclosed the previous ailment, ultimately dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, Complainant has preferred this Appeal.

We have heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the parties.

The Point that arises for our consideration is :-Whether Order of the District Commission in dismissing the Complaint is perverse, illegal and calls for our interference?

REASONS:

It is contended by the learned counsel for the Complainant that the Dlstrict Commission neither referred to the case of the Complainant nor discussed the evidence on record and has directly accepted certain paragraphs pleaded in the verslon filed by OP. It is further contended that the case laws relied upon by the Complainant was not discussed and that the OP has not produced any evidence to establish the alleged previous ailments or the surgery undergone by the mother of the Complainant. The District Commission has passed the cryptic order and sought for remand of the matter.

Per contra, learned counsel for the OP has contended that entire facts of the case has been summarised and the relevant aspects have been duly considered by the District Commission. The OP has placed material to show that Smt.Basavannemma was undergone heart surgery at Fortis Hospital, Bengaluru and was hospitalised from 21.03.2011 to 31.03.2011. It is further contended that post treatment by suppressing previous ailments, proposal was made by declaring good health, within six months of taking the policy, she died due to heart diseases, which was directly connected to her previous ailment. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the Complaintand he has argued in support of the impugned order.

We gave our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and perused thematerials on record.

At the outset, we find that the manner in which the District Commission has delivered the judgment IS the case, what is pleaded by the Complainant nor , paragraphs from the version and proceed to dismiss the defence set up by the OP