Life Insurance - Gbic.co.in

of treatment for urinary tract infection taken by the DLA, denied any malafide intention ofDLA to defraud the Respondent. She submitted that the Panel Doctors of the Respondenthad medically examined the DLA and the Medical Reports were submitted alongwith theProposal. Based on Mediclaim Policy that the DLA was maintaining with United IndiaInsurance Co., the Respondent argued that the DLA did not disclose the fact of treatmenttaken for his Ureteric Calculus which has prejudiced their underwriting decision andwithheld them from calling for further special reports and hence pleaded for sustaining therepudiation. It is observed that though suppression of fact had been proved by theRespondent, mere suppression is not enough in the instant case to repudiate the claim asduration between date of repudiation and date of effecting the contract exceeds 2 yearsattracting beneficial legislation laid down in Sec. 45. Documents perused. MedicalExaminer’s confidential Report had confirmed sound health of DLA. The procuring Agent aswell as the Branch Manger’s Reports were favorable to DLA. The Treating Surgeon’scertificate did not point out any chronic nature of disease. No fraudulent intention todefraud the Respondent is established. Further, the cause of death is by sudden heartattack which has no nexus between death and suppressed urinary tract infection. Thejudicial pronouncements also hold this view. Repudiation set aside. Respondent to pay fullS. A. with bonus accrued with 8 % simple interest.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. LIC / 2 / 148Shri Bhanubhai U. MonparaVs.Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward Dated 28.10.2004Death claim - Policy commenced on 28.2.01 - LA died on2.11.02. Complainant, husband of DLA. Repudiation due to suppression of facts.Respondent was called for Hearing and heard. To establish suppression of facts,Respondent submitted statements from Mr. Sanjay Sanchalia, Dr. V. V. Chapadia, bothneighbors of the DLA and statement, certificate and prescription form Dr. K. I. Shah. Onperusal of these documents, it is observed that as per the statement of Sanchalia, the DLAwas taking treatment from Dr. V. V. Chapadia and also from Dr. Pansuriya. As per Dr.Chapadia’s statement, the DLA was sick for last 5 years and was taking treatment from Dr.Pansuriya and Dr. K. I. Shah, but he himself did not treat the DLA though he is DLA’sneighbor. Respondent did not submit any documentary evidence from Dr. Pansuriya whohas been named as one of the Treating Doctors of DLA by Dr. Chapadia and by S.Sanchalia. Perusing the Certificate from Dr. K. I. Shah, it is observed that Dr. Shah haswritten that the DLA had consulted him in 1996 (not since 1996) only once for AsthamaticBronchitis. Referring to the Prescriptions of Dr. Shah, it is noted that although Dr. Shahhad mentioned three Doctors name in it, the Respondent did not produce any statementfrom these Doctors to establish that the DLA had been treated by them between 1996 and2001. In view of no significant evidentiary documents to establish suppression of facts andalso in view of judicial pronouncements in the decided cases viz. Sanjeev MahendralalShah [I (1998) CPJ 45 (NC)] and Smt. G. M. Channabasamma [ I (1991) ACC 411 (DB) ]Vs. LIC the subject case is decided in favour of the Complainant. Respondeat to pay fullS.A. with Bonus, if any, alongwith 8 % simple interest.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. 21 - 001 - 0097Smt. Ramaben V. PatelVs.Life Insurance Corporation of India