2014 PLP 726 (CLD)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

This appeal has been filed under section 124(2) of Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) against the judgment/order dated 4-3-2009 passed by Rana Muhammad Yousaf, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lahore with the powers of Insurance Tribunal under the Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000).

2. Respondent filed an application for recovery of policy proceeds under Policy No. 507875653-9 of (Late) Mst. Nazir Begum along with liquidated damages under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000).

3. Petition was filed on 23-1-2007 by the respondent being nominee of the insured deceased lady. Respondents-appellants were summoned. Written reply was filed. The learned Tribunal framed issues on 23-7-2007, invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. Vide judgment dated 4-3-2009 petition was accepted. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that before getting insurance policy the deceased lady was suffering from lungs disease which was concealed and when her claim was filed, the matter was thoroughly inquired by the appellants, therefore, vide refusal letter dated 13-11-2006 the claim was rightly refused. States that during pendency of the petition after close of evidence of the parties, appellants moved an application for summoning the record of the various hospitals where the deceased lady remained under treatment and also permission was sought for summoning the witnesses to prove the record. States that the learned trial court has wrongly refused the application and photocopies of the various prescriptions regarding treatment of deceased lady were produced and marked by the learned trial court but the same were not considered at the time of final decision of the lis by the learned trial court. Argues that court was bound to summon the record to arrive at a just and proper conclusion and that the court fell in error while refusing the application for summoning of the record.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the findings recorded by the learned trial court and further states that the proposal form which contains the undertaking and data of the deceased lady, has not been produced in the evidence, therefore, the allegation that wrong information was produced, is not proved; that the deceased was a "Pardah Nasheen" lady; that the appellants were bound to produce the medical record along with the reply in accordance with Order XIII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and even list of witnesses was not filed which is also violation of Order XVI, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. Further that when the claim was refused vide letter dated 13-11-2006 and allegedly a thorough inquiry was conducted, no inquiry or record on the basis of which the refusal letter was issued, has been produced and states that the photocopies have rightly been kept out of consideration by the learned trial court. Further argues that there is absolutely no case by the appellants, same be dismissed. While relying upon "State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and another v. Javaid Iqbal" (2011 SCMR 1013) states that when the proposal form was not presented, no case of the additional evidence was made out.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

7. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the appellants that before entering into insurance contract, insured person is thoroughly medically examined by the prescribed Medical Officer of the Insurance Company. It is also not denied that the insured person died during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the claim was lodged by the nominee of the insured person. The basic document was proposal form which contained all the information provided by the insured person and also signed by the said person which has not been produced in the court nor the Medical Officer who medically examined the insured person has been produced as a witness. Further when the order of refusal of insurance claim was passed on 13-11-2006 allegedly on the basis of thorough inquiry, in this eventuality, there should have been complete record of medical treatment, if any, of the insured person before entering into the insurance contract with regard to the disease by which she breathed her last but no such record has been produced. General application for summoning of record at the time when the parties have already exhausted their right to produce the same was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court. In view of the above, we have no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned Insurance Tribunal. No case for interference by this Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction has been made out. Resultantly, this appeal having no force stands dismissed with costs. SAK/S-101/L Appeal dismissed.