' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---The respondent being a widow of Muhammad Afzal insurer filed an application under section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 claiming that her husband Muhammad Afzal purchased an investment plan life insurance policy No,202468/133-1P amounting to Rs,266,000/- for the term of 20 years, the premium under the said policy was payable Rs,15037/- per annum, along with the policy two additional contracts i.e, accidental death and disability benefits plus family income benefit for the term of 10 years was also purchased. The respondent was the nominee of the insurance policy. The husband of respondent died on 30.7.2010 due to natural death, the respondent after the death of her husband lodged a claim under the policy, the appellant rejected the respondent's claim on 25.1.2011. It was specifically asserted that the statutory period of policy i.e, two years in terms of section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 was completed, hence the appellant could not call in question the legality of the policy on the ground of misstatement. The appellant filed reply and controverted the respondent's claim on the ground that the respondent's husband misstated at the time of purchasing the policy, hence the claim under the policy is not payable. The learned Insurance Tribunal out of divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- "ISSUES:
1. Whether the applicant is entitled for the Insurance Claim along with liquidated damages? OPA
2. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction? OPR
3. Whether the claim of the applicant is baseless and mala fide? OPR
4. Whether the applicant has got no cause of action? OPR
5. Relief".
' Both the parties examined their witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The learned Insurance Tribunal vide judgment dated 06.5.2015 decreed the respondent's claim, hence the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Insurance Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record specifically Mark-D while passing the impugned judgment. Mark-D is a medical record of the deceased policy holder and the respondent has accepted that the said record is genuine, hence there was no need to summon any medical officer or doctor to prove the contents of Mark-D. Learned counsel submits that the Insurance Tribunal has wrongly held that Mark-D could not be read in evidence as it is not a proved document. Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the case should be remanded to learned Insurance Tribunal for deciding the same afresh by considering Mark-D as a proven document.
3. Learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that under section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 after the lapse of two years the appellant cannot call in question the insurance policy on the ground of misstatement, hence the appellant has wrongly claimed that the deceased policy holder misstated the facts at the time of purchasing the policy.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
5. The learned Insurance Tribunal while deciding the insurance claim has held that the appellant has not summoned any Medical Officer of Ch. Pervaiz Elahi Institute of Cardiology, Multan for proving the contents of Mark-D, hence Mark-D cannot be considered a valid document as the same has no evidentiary value. Learned counsel for appellant has pointed out that on 27.1.2014 learned counsel for respondent got recorded his statement admitting that the policy holder remained admitted in Ch. Pervaiz Elahi Institute of Cardiology, Multan and Mark-D is his medical record. The learned Insurance Tribunal on the appellant's application under Order XVI, Rule 6, C.P.C.
Passed the following order:- "in view of statement of learned counsel for the applicant said photocopies are treated to be the genuine record of the hospital to be taken into evidence without calling the record of the Hospital, therefore, this application is accordingly disposed of".
' The argument of learned counsel for respondent is that the respondent has admitted the photocopies of the documents issued by Ch. Pervaiz Elahi Institute of Cardiology, Multan confirming that her deceased husband remained admitted in hospital, the statement does not show that the respondent admitted the veracity and legality of the document.
6. As there is a dispute between the parties regarding evidentiary value of Mark-D, we without commenting on the merits of the case accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to learned Insurance Tribunal with the direction that the learned Tribunal will allow the appellant to summon the doctor or any concerned official B of Ch. Pervaiz Elahi Institute of Cardiology, Multan for proving the document Mark-D. As it is an insurance claim of a widow, hence the learned Insurance Tribunal is directed to decide the claim within two months on receipt of certified copy of this judgment even at the cost of day to day hearing.