ORDER

      Twin Orders passed by the fora below are part of the record and it is needless to recapitulate or quote them here all over again in their entirety. But it would be sufficient to give a birds-eye view of the approach that has been adopted and the reasoning which persuaded by the two Commissions not to accept the repudiation of the claim as valid.

“--- --- --- Therefore, the medical records cannot be set to have been proved. Burden of proof lies on the person who assets certain facts existing like fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence etc., and urges the forum to believe the existence of those facts, must prove that those facts exist as per section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. Similarly, in contract of insurance burden lies on the insurance company to prove and establish that there were violation of terms and conditions of the policy or the life assured had deceived the opposite parties/insurance company by furnishing wrong information. In a contract of indemnity/insurance burden lies on the part of the Insurance Company to prove that there are violation of the conditions of the policy and it is not liable to pay any amount, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamala Mangalal Vayani v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 ACJ 1441.The opposite parties/insurance company failed to discharge the burden. Therefore, the opposite parties/insurance company is bound to pay a sum assured to the complainant who is nominee of the life assured --- --- ---”.

10.   After discussing the relevant law at length, the District Commission proceeded to observe that “--- --- --- The opposite parties have not even filed the affidavits of those persons who issued Ex.B-6 and B-7 so as to give some credibility to the documents ---
--- ---.” It further proceeded to observe that “--- --- ---Therefore, we are unable to place any reliance on the attested copies of the medical record marked by the opposite parties under Ex.B6 and the investigation report under Ex.B.7, which was primarily based on Ex.B6. If Ex.B6 and B7 are eschewed from consideration for want of reliability, there was no other evidence adduced by opposite parties to prove the allegation of pre-existing illness suffered by the insured  --- --- ---’’. And it further expressed its view that “--- --- ---The Opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of suppression of material fact by the insured of his pre-existing illness without there being any substantial legal proof --- --- --- ”.

11. The complaint was allowed after a thorough discussion on law and facts both. When the matter was taken by the State Commission, it reappraised itself with all the details of the material and evidence available on record and after taking note of the admitted facts regarding issuance of the insurance policy, its validity at the relevant point of time, the delay in honoring the claim, the notice given to the insurance co. and the repudiation of the claim etc.,  the State Commission succinctly captured the hub of the controversy involved and conclusively opinioned as follows:

14. The burden of proof lies on the opposite parties to establish that the life assured suppressed the material information in the proposal form thereby induced it to issue policy. Once the opposite parties discharged the burden lies on them, the onus of proof shifts on the complainant to establish that the opposite parties repudiated the claim on untenable grounds. There is no much dispute between the parties with regard to the Exs.A-1 to A-5, Exs.B-1, B-2, B-8 and B-9. The crucial question to be addressed by this Commission is whether the District Forum discarded Exs.B-5, B-6 and B-7 on untenable grounds. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we have carefully scanned Exs.B-5 to B- 7. Ex.B-5 and B-6 are the case sheets alleged to have been secured by the surveyor. These case sheets are Xerox copies. Any person with reasonable intellectual faculty, may not be in a position