THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23696 OF 2006 BETWEEN: 1. Union of India, rep. By the Chief Postmaster General, Adndhra Pradesh Circle, Hyderabad and another. PETITIONERS And 1. Borusu Poorna Chandra Kalavathi W/o. Borusu Chandra Rao, R/o. Kothapeta East Godavari District and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. M.V. Suresh The Court made the following – ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) By invoking Certiorari jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order, dated 10.07.2006, passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, in F.A.No.672 of 2006 confirming the order dated 21.02.2006 passed in C.D.No.37 of 2003 by the District Consumer Forum-II, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. The husband of the first respondent, namely, Borusu Chandra Rao, while working in the Postal Department obtained two postal life insurance policies for Rs.1,00,000/- each, bearing Policy No. A.P- 116844-P proposed on 8.12.1997 and accepted on 8.01.1998; and Policy No. A.P-117525-P, proposed on 19.01.1998 and accepted on 2.02.1998. Unfortunately, he died on 17.05.2000. On his death, his wife, the first respondent herein, made claim before the Postal Department claiming the policy amount. The said claim was rejected by the Postal Department on the ground that since the deceased died within three years from the date of obtaining the policies and the enquiries conducted by the department reveal that the insured has suppressed certain material facts about his ill-health though he was suffering with Diabetic and lever problems, and hence she is not entitled to claim the amount under the policy. On rejection of the said claim, the first respondent made a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum-II, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, in C.C.No.124 of 2005 (CD 37 of 2003). The petitioners herein, who are the opposite parties in the said claim, filed counter contending that the insured died due to diabetics and lever problem, which took place within three years from the date of obtaining the insurance policies and that he has availed medical leave for diabetics and viral fever from 30.03.1996 to 23.04.1996, 9.07.1996 to 23.07.1996 for jaundice, 3.01.1997 to 2.02.1997 and 19.01.1997 for viral fever and diabetic ulcer, and 24.10.1997 to 4.11.1997 for Hepatitis. The District Consumer Forum observed that though the opposite parties had taken the plea in the counter that the insured suppressed the ill-health and obtained the policies, they have not produced any evidence to substantiate that the said plea is true. Since the policies are not under dispute, the Consumer Forum by order dated 21.02.2006 allowed the consumer complaint directing the petitioners to pay the insured amount, Rs.5000/- towards damages and Rs.1500/- towards costs. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, in F.A.No.672 of 2006. The State Commission, by the impugned order dated 10.07.2006 dismissed the appeal holding that except the averments made in the counter, the opposite parties failed to produce any record to establish their case. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum-II does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Questioning the correctness of the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending that the State Commission failed to consider various documents filed by them along with the appeal. Since the enquiry conducted by the department reveals that the insured unusually availed medical leave due to diabetic and diabetic ulcer, jaundice and hepatitis, and as per column No.16 (b) and (c) of the proposal form the insured has to disclose the ailments, but he had suppressed all the material facts, the order passed by the District Forum is contrary to Rule 7 of the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules (for short the ‘POIF Rules’). Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously reiterated the very same grounds challenging the impugned order, contending that as per Rule 7-A of the POIF Rules, the Chief Postmaster General at his discretion can render the contract concluded with inaccurate information furnished by a person as voidable and can forfeit all the payments made by him in the event of suppressing the material facts, and in spite of filing of the documents before the State Consumer Forum, without taking them into consideration the State Consumer Forum has simply confirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Forum. The learned counsel for the first respondent sought to sustain the impugned order contending that the burden lies upon the petitioners to establish the suppression of material facts. Since they have failed to discharge the burden lies upon them, the lower Court rightly allowed the consumer complaint. We have gone through the two policy proposals filed along with the writ petition. As per the first proposal, it was made on 8.12.1997 and accepted on 19.01.1998. The second proposal was made on 19.01.1998 and accepted on 2.02.1998. Before the said proposals were submitted for approval by the department, a certificate was obtained from the Civil Surgeon, Venereologist, Government General Hospital, Kakinada, certifying that the proposer Mr. B. Chandra Rao is medically fit and he is recommended for acceptance of the proposals for the postal life insurance policy by the Chief Postmaster General. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the insured suppressed the material facts of his suffering with diabetics and lever problems, do not merit consideration. Even the other documents, i.e., the certificates filed before the State Consumer Forum, do not indicate that on what ground the deceased availed the medical leave. Further, mere production of documents along with the appeal does not amount to prove the contents of the counter that the insured suppressed the material facts vide column No.16 (b) and (c) of the proposal form, which disentitle the first respondent to claim insurance amount, since the concerned doctor has issued certificate after examining the insured stating that the insured is medically fit for the proposal. In the absence of any proof filed by the petitioners that the deceased was suffering with the diseases and not entitled to insurance claim, and the Postmaster General did not repudiate the contract and informed the insured or his Nominees, it is not open for the department to repudiate the claim under the policy. In view of the same we do not see any merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. 27th October, 2009 Js.