ABDUL REHMAN AURANGZEB, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 29.01.2016, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I/Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore, by virtue of which the claim of the appellant/claimant regarding policy No.50788084-0, for a sum of Rs.150,000/-, and policy No.507893886-0, for a sum of Rs.200,000/-, in the name of insured/deceased lady Jameela Kausar, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts out of which present appeal arises are that the insured lady Jameela Kausar, wife of present appellant, was insured for table/term of two policies i.e. 03/20 years with yearly premium of Rs.7667/- and 03/20 years with yearly premium of Rs.10288/-. The date of commencement of insurance policy No.507880884-0 was 01.08.2005 and the date of commencement of second policy No.507893886-0 was 01.10.2006. Both the policies remained continue till 25.06.2009 when the insured Jameela Kausar died. Insurance claim was filed by appellant/nominee which was refused by the respondents vide order dated 09.02.2010. The appellant filed an application under sections 122 and 123 of Insurance Ordinance 2000 for payment of amount of insurance along with liquidated damages before learned Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore.
3. During the course of trial, the claimant, in order to prove his assertion, appeared himself as AW-1 and also produced letter dated 09.02.2010 Ex.P-1. In rebuttal the respondents examined Sagheer Ahmad Superintendent SLIC Gujrat, RW-1 and Dr. Ejaz Ahmad Department of Neurology Mayo Hospital Lahore RW-2. In documentary evidence, the respondents have produced Authority letter dated 04.11.2013 Ex.R-1, copy of insurance policies Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3, copies of proposal forms Ex. R-4 and Ex.R-5, Claim forms Ex.R-6, discharge slip of Mayo Hospital Lahore Ex.R-7 M.R.I. report Ex.R-8, Medical prescriptions of Dr. Abdul Qayyum Afridi Ex.R-9 and Ex.R-10, Lab report of Aga Khan University Hospital Ex.R-11 and letter of claim examiner Ex.R-12. After conclusion of trial, the learned tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant vide impugned judgment dated 29.01.2016. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that after the death of insured lady (Jameela Kausar) when the claim was launched, it was wrongly observed that some material facts had been suppressed by the insured deceased while entering into the contract in the non-medical proposal due to having disease "spastic quadripresis". He further contended that document which is not duly proved cannot be read in evidence even if the same was exhibited without any objection, therefore, the documents Exh R-7 to Exh R-11 are not duly admissible documents in evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, while defending the impugned judgment, stated that findings arrived by the learned ADJ-I/ Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore, are correct as the insured lady had been suffering from disease of serious nature for the last four years before entering into contract, due to which the claim was rightly declined.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. From perusal of above mentioned record, it is vividly exposed that the documents Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-11 are the pivotal documents which ascertain the validity of claim of petitioner. The moot point involved in this claim is that whether the insured deceased had willfully suppressed her disease at the time of purchasing of policies. In this regard the department/respondents while contesting the claim in hand requested the trial Court for ascertaining the validity of documents Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-11 by summoning the concerned persons of these documents. Record of the learned trial Court transpires that the witnesses i.e. Record Keeper Urology Department, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Dr. Brig.
M. Hamid Akram, Army Medical Complex, Military Hospital, MRI/Radiology Department, Mall Road, Rawalpindi and Dr. Abdul Qayyum Afridi, M.S. PRC, Paraplegics Centre, Hayatabad, Peshawar were summoned consistently but they did not appear before the learned trial Court. On 13.01.2016 it was suggested by learned counsel for the respondents that if counsel for the applicant is agreed for submissions of these documents in evidence subject to payment of costs then the production of these documents can be tendered without any objection. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant was agreed upon this suggestion (upon offer and acceptance of both the learned counsel for the parties) the learned trial Court waived the process of summoning of these witnesses and the medical reports Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-11 were allowed to be tendered subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-.
8. To our view this process was not defined under the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
For production of documents, there is a recommended procedure provided in Articles 72 and 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,' 1984. The said Articles of the Order (ibid) is reproduced as under:- Article 72: "The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence."
Article 78: "If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's hand-writing must be proved to be in his handwriting."
The documents i.e. Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-11 placed on record, were duly signed by doctor and official staff of the maker. The respondents had already deposited the process fee for summoning of the witnesses with the assistance of the Court. Although these documents were produced in the evidence but the question of their admissibility remained hinge. An alien process was adopted by the learned trial Court for allowing the documents to be placed on record. There is a mark difference between production and admissibility of document.
9. Admittedly Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-11 are not the public documents and the same were to be proved in accordance with the provisions of Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984. The onus to prove the same was on the respondents as the same were relied by them. The documents which were got exhibited as Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-11 with their newly suggested mode vide order dated 17.01.2016 is not binding on the parties and any document cannot be treated as proof merely on the ground that it was so admitted in the evidence by the Court or by the party without any objection. In this regard the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, Order, 1984 must be strictly complied with and if these documents were not proved under the provisions of Order ibid, then it cannot even made basis for the dismissal or acceptance of claim of plaintiff.
10.For what has been discussed above, the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2016, passed by the learned tribunal for tendering the documents in evidence without adopting the due process of evidence is declared illegal and the same is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Resultantly, the instant appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2016 is set-aside. The instant case is remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to decide it afresh strictly on merits in accordance with law after recording of evidence of RWs (Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-11) for which the respondents had already deposited the process fee. No order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge-I/Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore, on 02.03.2017.