- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ING VYSYA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. v. JASPAL KAUR
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2525 OF 2014
(Against the Order dated 31/10/2013 in Appeal No. 707/2009 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. ING VYSYA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
NEAR HDFC BANK ,1ST FLOOR, OUTSIDE SUNAMI
GATE, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER
SANGRUR
PUNJAB
2. ING VYSYA LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD.
REGD OFFICE-ING VYSYA HOUSE,6TH FLOOR, NO-22,
MG ROAD, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE - 560 001
KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. JASPAL KAUR
W/O BALWINDER SINGH, S/O BACCHAN SINGH(SEHNO KE) R/O NEAR GRAIN MARKET, PARWAHI ,TEHSIL, &
DISTRICT : BARNALA
PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh K. Rajwania, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 02 Jul 2014
ORDER
V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1. Late Shri Balwinder Singh, husband of the complainant, purchased a policy from the petitioner ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Ltd. for Rs.5,00,000/- on 31- 05-2007. At the time of taking the policy late Shri Balwinder Singh claimed to be hale and hearty, having no pre-existing disease. A medical certificate was also submitted by him along with the declaration form. He died on 16-03-2008. The complainant submitted a claim seeking payment of the insurance amount along with requisite documents. The claim was, however, repudiated by the petitioner alleging that the deceased had withheld material information in respect of his pre-existing disease of ypertension with Hypertensive Nephropathy and Chronic Renal Failure with end stage renal diseaseand that he was on Haemodialysis for the same since April 2005. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant filed a petition before the concerned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, seeking payment of the insurance amount along with damages for mental agony and litigation expenses, with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.. Vide order dated 17-03-2009, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of
1
Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization and litigation expenses amounting to Rs.6,000/-. 2. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Vide impugned order dated 13-10-2013, the aforesaid Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner is before us by way of this petition. 3. The entire case of the petitioner is based upon a discharge summary purporting to be issued by Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid discharge summary was collected by its representative from the aforesaid hospital, while investigating the claim of the complainant. We have carefully examined the discharge summary relied upon by the petitioner. We find that the said summary does not give either the name of the father of the deceased or his address. As per the discharge summary, the patient was admitted on 8-09-2005 and was discharged on 10-09-2005 and at the time of admission his age was 45 years. A perusal of the documents submitted by the deceased at the time of taking the policy would show that his date of birth was 5-12-1955. Calculated accordingly, he would be about 50 years old on 8-09-2005. Therefore, the discharge summary relied upon by the petitioner cannot be of the husband of the complainant. Even otherwise, there is no evidence which would establish that the aforesaid discharge summary pertains to the husband of the deceased. Neither any certificate has been obtained from the hospital to show that the said summary pertained to Balwinder Singh S/o Bacchan, resident of Village and Post Office Pharwahi, Barnala, nor has the petitioner collected the record of the admission which would have indicated the name of the father of the patient as well as the address given by him at the time he was admitted in the hospital. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no evidence was produced by the complainant to rebut the evidence produced by the petitioner and, therefore, there was no justification for rejecting the aforesaid discharge summary. We, however, cannot accept the contention. The question of rebuttal would come only when some credible evidence is produced by a party in respect of its contention. Since the petitioner did not produce any credible evidence to connect the discharge summary collected by its official from Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana with the deceased husband of the complainant, there was no necessity for the complainant to rebut the same. Moreover, the complainant stated on oath that her husband was hale and hearty. Therefore, the onus was on the insurance company to prove that in fact the deceased had a pre-existing disease at the time the policy was taken by him. No evidence was produced by the petitioner to prove that the deceased had a pre-existing ailment at the time the policy was taken by him. In these circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with concurrent view taken by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.
......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
MEMBER
2
Alert