Saroj Yadav, J

1. The present Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation of India, under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, challenging the Order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in First Appeal No. 05/2013. Vide the impugned Order, the Ld. State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and affirmed the Order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.CC/1396/2009.

2. The brief facts leading to the present dispute, as emerged from the Complaint, are that the Deceased Life Assured (DLA), Navitesh Sadhwani, son of the Respondent/Complainant, obtained a Jeevan Anand Policy bearing No. 114529122 for a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- with an annual premium of Rs.31,818/-, wherein the Respondent was nominated as the nominee. The proposal form bears the date 31.01.2007 and the policy bond was subsequently issued on 20.02.2007, with the date of commencement of the policy shown as 28.01.2007. The DLA had also earlier obtained another policy bearing No. 114742821 for a sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/-, commencing from 28.02.2006. The DLA was hospitalised on 03.10.2008 and expired on 14.10.2008 at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, Delhi, due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure and cardiorespiratory arrest. The Respondent intimated the Petitioner regarding the death vide letter dated 05.11.2008 and submitted the requisite claim documents. While the claim under the earlier policy was investigated and settled by the Petitioner, the claim under the subject policy was repudiated on the ground of alleged fraudulent suppression of material facts relating to the health of the DLA. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the Respondent approached the Ld. District Forum, which allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay the sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till actual payment, besides Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and harassment and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Ld. State Commission, vide the impugned Order, affirmed the said findings with a stipulation regarding enhancement of interest in the event of non- compliance within the prescribed period.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Ld. Fora below failed to appreciate that the proposal for the subject policy was actually submitted and inwarded at the Branch Office on 07.02.2007 under the Green Channel scheme. Reliance has been placed upon Counter Receipt No.1375523 dated 07.02.2007, generated at 14:52 hours, to contend that the first premium was accepted on that date and that the risk, therefore, commenced only thereafter. It is submitted that Dr. S. Lahiri, Consultant Cardiologist at Delhi Heart and Lung Institute, in his certificate dated 18.12.2008, certified that the DLA had been diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy by 2D echocardiography on 05.02.2007. According to the Petitioner, the DLA was thus aware of his cardiac condition before the proposal was submitted on 07.02.2007, but nevertheless answered the questions relating to medical consultation, hospitalisation and disease of the heart in the negative and represented himself to be in good health.

4. It is further contended that the DLA fraudulently procured the policy with retrospective commencement from 28.01.2007 so as to avoid disclosure of the intervening medical development. The Petitioner has relied upon the principle of utmost good faith (uberrima fides) applicable to contracts of insurance and has contended that the duty of disclosure continues until the contract of insurance is concluded. Reliance has been placed, inter alia, upon 'Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.' (2009) 8 SCC 316; 'Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Goel' (2001) 2 SCC 160; 'Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba' (1984) 2 SCC 719.

5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has supported the concurrent findings of the Ld. Fora below and submitted that the proposal form was completed and signed on 31.01.2007 and handed over along with the first premium cheque to the authorised agent and panel medical examiner of the Petitioner on the same date. It is submitted that the medical examination was also conducted on 31.01.2007 and the relevant papers were thereafter to be transmitted by the panel medical examiner to the Branch Office. According to the Respondent, the subsequent inwarding of the papers on 07.02.2007 was an internal administrative matter of the Petitioner and cannot alter the date borne on the proposal form. Reliance has also been placed upon the policy schedule itself, which records the proposal date as 31.01.2007 and the commencement date as 28.01.2007. It is further submitted that the certificate of Dr. Lahiri specifically records that the DLA was diagnosed for the first time on 05.02.2007 and that there was no past history of any disease prior thereto. It is therefore contended that the Petitioner has failed to establish that the DLA had any knowledge of the alleged cardiac condition at the time when the proposal was made or that he had deliberately suppressed any material fact.

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record.

7. The controversy in the present Revision Petition essentially turns upon the question whether the Petitioner has established that the Deceased Life Assured (DLA), at the relevant time, had knowledge of his cardiac condition and, despite such knowledge, deliberately suppressed the same from the Petitioner so as to obtain the policy by misrepresentation. The mere fact that the DLA was subsequently diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is not, by itself, sufficient to establish fraudulent suppression. What is required to be examined is whether the fact allegedly suppressed was within the knowledge of the DLA at the relevant point of time and whether the evidence on record establishes a conscious failure on his part to disclose the same.

8. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the significance of the different dates appearing on the record. The proposal form bears the date 31.01.2007, whereas the policy document was issued on 20.02.2007 and records the commencement of risk retrospectively from 28.01.2007. The Petitioner contends that the proposal and the first premium were actually received at the Branch Office only on 07.02.2007 and that the DLA had, therefore, already been diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy on 05.02.2007 when he submitted the proposal and made the relevant declarations. The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the proposal papers and the first premium had already been handed over to the authorised agent/panel medical examiner on 31.01.2007. The distinction between the date appearing on the proposal, the date of receipt of the proposal and premium, the date of commencement of risk and the date of issuance of the policy is, therefore, material.

9. In this regard, the petitioner cited the case law 'Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jaya Wadhwani & Branch Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd., v. Usha Soni', (2024) 2 SCC 427. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the distinction between the date of proposal, the date of receipt of premium and the date of issuance of the policy, held that the date of issuance of the policy is the relevant date and that the date of commencement of risk, even where retrospectively fixed, cannot by itself be treated as the date on which the policy was issued. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to its earlier decisions including 'LIC v. Dharam Vir Anand', (1998) 7 SCC 348 and 'LIC v. Mani Ram', (2005) 6 SCC 274, reiterated that even where the policy is backdated for commencement of risk, the date of the policy remains the date on which it is issued. The petitioner's counsel contended that in the present case, the fact that the policy records 28.01.2007 as its commencement date cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the contract of insurance stood concluded on that date. The policy was admittedly issued on 20.02.2007.

10. The aforesaid position, however, does not by itself conclude the controversy before us. The question which remains is whether, the DLA deliberately failed to disclose the alleged cardiac conditions at the time of obtaining policy. Even if the duty of disclosure is held to continue until acceptance of the proposal, the burden of establishing the factual foundation of fraudulent suppression would continue to rest upon the Petitioner.

11. The certificate dated 18.12.2008 issued by Dr. S. Lahiri records that the DLA was diagnosed for the first time on 05.02.2007 with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy by 2D echocardiography and further records that there was no past history of any disease prior to the said diagnosis.

12. It is established that the proposal form was filled on 31.01.2007. The authorised medical practitioner examined the DLA on the same day. The cheque of first premium was also issued and handed over to the authorised agent along with proposal form, on the same day. Thus, the facts regarding health were filled in the proposal form at the time of filing the proposal form i.e., 31.01.2007. Therefore, the DLA has no occasion to make any changes in that proposal form. As per assertion of the respondent/ complainant 'a free look opportunity as mandated under IRDA Rules was not provided to the DLA. Hence, there was no opportunity to the DLA to disclose the disease diagnosed on 05.02.2007.

13. In the present case, the material relied upon by the Petitioner establishes, at the highest, that the DLA was diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy on 05.02.2007 and that the policy was thereafter issued on 20.02.2007, but it does not by itself establishes that the DLA had consciously failed to disclose it before the policy was issued as the proposal form was already filled and handed over to the authorised agent of the petitioner on 31.01.2007.

14. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that on 05.02.2007, and the subsequent issuance of the policy on 20.02.2007 is sufficient to establish fraudulent suppression. Even assuming that the duty of disclosure continued until acceptance of the proposal, the Petitioner was required to establish that the DLA had occasion to disclose but deliberately failed to disclose the same. The concurrent findings of the Ld. District Forum and the Ld. State Commission, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

15. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the present proceedings arise in revisional jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 58(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is circumscribed and is not equivalent to that of an appellate court undertaking a fresh appreciation of evidence merely because another view may be possible. In the present case, both the Ld. District Forum and the Ld. State Commission have considered the medical certificate and the allegation of suppression and have concurrently found that fraudulent suppression had not been established. In the light of the above discussion, we find no jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference with the impugned order.

16. The finding that the repudiation is unsustainable having been reached, we now turn to the relief granted by the Ld. Fora below. The Ld. District Forum directed payment of the sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till actual payment and additionally awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and harassment and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Ld. State Commission affirmed the said relief with a stipulation regarding enhancement of interest in the event of non-compliance within the prescribed period. In our considered opinion the directions also need no interference.

17. The Revision Petition No.1154 of 2021 is, accordingly, dismissed.

18. The Petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation of India, is directed to pay to the Respondent/Complainant the amount as directed in the impugned order within a period of six weeks from the date of this Order.

19. In case the aforesaid amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the outstanding amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation.

20. Pending Application(s), if any, stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.