Death Claim - Gbic.co.in

dispute the will but contended that the life assured was an illiterate lady suffering froma stammer in her speech and that the compiler might have recorded a different agethan actually stated by her. However, this argument on the face of it was not tenable asthe document carried the photograph of the lady also and the lady as per thephotograph affixed on the deed appeared to be of the age as declared in the document.The repudiation of the claim was, therefore, held to be in order.Lucknow Ombudsman CentreCase No. : L-316/21/001/06-07Smt. Ram BetiVsLife Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward dated 20.11.2006Smt. Ram Beti had lodged a complaint with Insurance Ombudsman for allegedlyunjustified repudiation of claim by LIC of India under policy no.221463648 on the life ofher husband Shri Reet Ram on the ground that the life assured was suffering fromCOPD disease prior to the date of the proposal under the policy and he had notdisclosed the same in the proposal. In support of its decision, the insurer submitted thefamily medical treatment card of OCF Hospital, Shahjahanpur, copy of medicalattendant certificate/copy of certificate of hospital treatment from OCF hospital,Shahajahanpur, certificate of leave on claim form ‘E’ from the employer of the decease.As per the family treatment card of OCF hospital, Shahajahanpur Shri Reet Ram, Lifeassured had consulted the doctor at the hospital prior to the date of proposal and wasdiagnosed as suffering from dysponea. As per the certificate of Hospital treatment thedeceased was an old case of COPD. These facts were not disclosed in the proposalform. The insurer thus having established that the deceased life assured was sufferingfrom the disease prior to the date of the proposal about which he had the knowledgeand had not disclosed the same in the proposal form, the repudiation of the claim washeld to be in order.Lucknow Ombudsman CentreCase No. : L-362/21/001/06-07Smt.Saraswati DeviVsLife Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward dated 23.11.2006Smt. Saraswati Devi had lodged a complaint with Insurance Ombudsman for allegedunjustified repudiation of claim by LIC of India under policy no.283866385 on the life ofher husband Shri Ram Narayan Maurya on the ground that prior to the date of proposalhe was not in a good health; was a disabled person and was coming to the school in atricycle which facts were not disclosed by him in the proposal form. If these facts werecorrectly disclosed he would not have been given policy under Plan 149 at this age. Insupport of its contentions the insurer submitted statements from one Shri KrishnaMohan Maurya and Tej Nath Chouhan residents of the same village and Shri BechuSingh, Head Master, Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya where the life assured was doing theteaching job. The complainant contested these allegations and stated that her husbandwas in a good health before the date of proposal and was not a disabled person.Besides he was medically examined also by Corporation’s doctor before the proposalwas accepted. In her support she submitted statements from Gram Pradhan of thevillage where the life assured was residing as also from Gram Pradhan of the villagewhere he was doing the teaching job and also one Shri Bhrigunath Ram who was the