THE KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.733/2012.

JUDGMENT DTD: 15-02-2013.

PRESENT

SMT. A. RADHA:                                                                   MEMBER

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR:                              JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.   The Manager,

      The Life Insurance Corporation

      of India, Divisional Office,

      Jeevan Prakash Building,

      Nagampadom, Kottayam.

2.   The Branch Manager,

      Life Insurance Corporation

      of India, Branch Office,

      Kalavil Buildings, Ranny,

      Now functioning at Othara Complex,

      Ranni.                                                   --                 APPELLANTS                       (By Adv. Sri. G.S. Kalkura)                  

      Vs.

      Mariamma Abraham,

      W/o. Late Abraham P. Thomas,

      Palamoottil House,

      Karikulam PO, Ranni.                          --                 RESPONDENT

(By Adv. Sri.K.G.Mohandas)

JUDGMENT

                        SMT. A. RADHA    :     MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the order dated 5/04/2011 in CC No.25/06 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta, the opposite parties came up in this appeal.  The Forum below allowed the complaint and to realise an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs with 8% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint.  Further direction is to realise of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.3,000/- 

2.      The case of the complainant is that the complainant’s husband took a policy of Rs. 5 lakhs from the opposite party and an an amount of Rs. 15,356/- was paid as yearly premium on 09/01/2002.  The insurer died on 11/02/2002 due to cardiac arrest and a claim was submitted before the opposite party which was not repudiated nor settled. The complainant filed this complaint for direction to settle the insurance claim of the insured who had a valid policy at the time of his death along with compensation and cost. 

3.      The opposite parties filed written version contending that the sudden death of the insured happened within 5 days after taking the policy.  The death was intimated after two months and the certificate from the employer produced by the wife of the diseased was incomplete and the information in column No.3 was not legible regarding the leave of absence during the period from 1999 till date.  The readable portion of column 3 showed that the leave availed was due to illness.  It is also contended that the certificate of the employer issued was upto 29/12/2000 and the period from 29/12/2000 till 10/02/2002 was conspicuously absent.  It is also stated in the version that the name of the employer of the insured in the proposal form and the employer certificate are different.   It has not revealed rather suppressed the name of the employer during 2000-2002.   This is  a highly material information which was suppressed by the complainant without giving the valuable details to the opposite parties and also without revealing the correct state of health of the insured while taking the policy.  The incomplete certificate in Form E shows that the insured was suffering from heart disease for a longtime and was undergoing treatment at the time of submitting the proposal form.  The insurance policy was taken at the age of 54 and it shows that the insured was fully aware of his impending fate.  The insurance contract being on the utmost good faith requires to reveal the material facts.  The proposer is expected to give true answers to the questions in the proposal form.  It is also stated in the version that u/s 45 of Insurance Act,  the LIC has right to repudiate a policy wi