Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 08.08.2012, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 1062/2010, œRajabeti versus Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC),? vide which the order dated 11.03.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muraina (M.P.), dismissing the consumer complaint in question, was confirmed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner/complainant Raja Beti, Mahendra Singh got insurance policy from the LIC under Jeevan Anmol Yojana Scheme for sum assured of Rs.5 lakh through an agent and paid Rs.2238/- as premium on 28.06.2005 as first-six monthly instalment. Before issuing the policy, the LIC got conducted medical examination of the insured Mahendra Singh through their panel Doctor and then issued policy No. 202285636. The petitioner was appointed nominee under the said policy. The said Mahendra Singh died on 30.07.2005 at his village. An insurance claim was filed by petitioner and the requisite papers were submitted, but the same was rejected vide letter dated 09.07.2008 by the LIC. The petitioner filed the consumer complaint in question, following the repudiation of the claim. In their written reply to the complaint before the District Forum, the LIC stated that the insured had obtained the said policy in a fraudulent manner. He had concealed information about his health condition before taking the policy. It was also alleged that it was a case of impersonation, because some other person had been produced for medical examination before the Doctor. The signatures of the insured on the proposal form and the medical report were different. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties dismissed the complaint and also stated that the petitioner/complainant could seek remedy before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. An appeal was filed by the petitioner-complainant against this order, which was dismissed vide impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.
3. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that the claim had been wrongly repudiated by the OP/LIC saying that the insured was suffering from a pre-existing disease. The learned counsel stated that since the insured had been duly examined by a Doctor on behalf of the LIC, before issuing the policy in question, the claim should not have been repudiated on this ground. The LIC had not produced any evidence to show that the insured was suffering from cancer. Regarding the impersonation factor, the learned counsel stated that the hand- writing experts produced by both parties had given conflicting reports. Further, the Doctor who examined the insured had given a certificate on the proposal form that the insured put his signatures in his presence and further, the answers given to various questions at serial no. 10 onwards, had been correctly recorded. The policy had been taken through Chander Pal, authorised agent and an affidavit had been given by the said Chander Pal agent, saying that the medical report carries the signature of Mahendra Singh only and he had identified Mahendra Singh before the said Doctor. The said version cannot be belied by an affidavit filed by the Administrative Officer (Legal) of the LIC. The learned counsel stated that there was no justification for referring the matter to the civil court as held by the Consumer Fora below. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by the Apex Court in œDr. J.J. Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi? [as reported in (2002) 6 SCC 635], saying that it was not proper to ask the parties to seek remedy in the civil court.
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent LIC stated that the main issue involved in the present case related to impersonation made by the insured at the time of medical examination by the panel doctor. Both the consumer foras below had given concurrent findings that to go into the depth of the matter, the remedy should be to go to a civil court of competent jurisdiction. He stated that the facts of the case œDr. J.J. Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi? (supra), were not applicable in the present case. The learned counsel has drawn attention to report of the hand-writing expert, produced by the LIC, duly supported by an affidavit of an officer of the company in which it had been stated that the signatures of Mahendra Singh on the medical report did not tally with those on the proposal form. The impugned order was, therefore, passed in accordance with law and should be sustained.
5. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
6. There are two important points involved in the present case, as to whether the insured was suffering from a pre-existing disease and that he did not disclose the factum of this disease before taking the insurance policy in question, AND whether there was impersonation on the part of the insured by sending another person in his place for medical examination before the Doctors. In so far as the point regarding impersonation is concerned, the reports of two handwriting experts are on record, one of which says that signatures on the proposal form and those on the medical report belongs to the same person, whereas the report of other handwriting expert produced by the LIC says that these signatures are of different persons. The agent of the LIC has stated that he himself produced the insured before the Doctors for medical examination and it was he who signed the papers. A perusal of the impugned order recorded by the State Commission indicates that the State Commission has quoted the reports of two handwriting experts and then simply stated that the appeal was being dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum made absolute. The State Commission have not given any reason whatsoever for having come to their conclusion. It was the duty of the State Commission to analyse the facts and circumstances of the case and then pass order, based on sound reasoning, but unfortunately, they have failed to do so. On this point, the District Forum have also not carried out any discussion regarding the reports of two handwriting experts, but simply jumped to the conclusion that the present dispute should be decided by a competent civil court.
7. In so far as, the non-disclosure of a pre-existing disease is concerned, there is no material on record to believe that the insured was suffering from a pre-existing disease and that he had knowledge about the same and he deliberately misstated the facts while filling the proposal form. It was the duty of the District Forum and the State Commission to examine this aspect thoroughly before coming to their conclusion.
8. The petitioner has cited the order of the Honble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi? (supra) in support of his argument that the consumer fora were competent to take a decision in the matter and there was no necessity to observe that the matter needed to be decided by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. It has been observed by the Honble Apex Court in the said case that the object and purpose of enacting the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints against defective goods and deficient services. Their Lordships also observed that the National Commission was headed by a retired Judge of the Apex Court and the State Commission was required to be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court and hence, they were competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts. The Honble Apex Court observed that merely because it was mentioned that Commission or Fora was required to have summary trial, it would hardly be a ground for directing the consumers to approach the civil court.
9. Respectfully following the judgement given by the Honble Apex Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi? (supra), it seems inappropriate in the present case to have asked the parties to go to a competent civil court in the light of the facts that the reports of two handwriting experts had already come on record. It was the duty of the consumer fora to have examined these reports and in case, they found any doubt, they could have referred the matter to a third independent handwriting expert to give his opinion in the matter.
10. Based on the discussion above, it is held that the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are not sustainable as they have been passed, without carrying out proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record. The orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are, therefore, set aside. The present revision petition is allowed and case is remanded to the District Forum with the direction that they should appoint an independent handwriting expert and obtain his opinion, after which they should carry out an analysis of the entire factual matrix of the case. The District Forum should also go into this question whether the insured was suffering from any disease before taking of the policy and whether there was a non-disclosure of the said disease while filing the proposal form. The parties have been directed to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muraina (M.P.) on 6.08.2014 for further proceedings.