Per Justice G.D. Sharma, J. (Oral) 1. Through the medium of this appeal, Order dated 12.12.2003 has been challenged whereby the Learned Divisional Forum Jammu (herein after referred to as Forumhas allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to indemnify the respondent for a sum of Rs. One lac which was the insured risk of the Insurance Policy Cover No.140754977 covering the risk of the life of her husband Shri Joginder Lal Sharma with effect from 28.08.1997 to 28.08.2017. The appellant has also been directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the raising of the claim with the appellant by the respondent till final payment is made. Besides that compensation for mental agony has been granted in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- and litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. In the memo of appeal; the ground of challenge is that the insured deceased had been suffering from cancer which material fact had not been disclosed in the proposal form and as such the impugned order suffers from illegality. It is also stated that there was evidence to the effect that insured deceased had been hospitalized vide MRD No. 600 dated 29.09.2001 in Sub District Hospital Akhnoor where he had undergone treatment of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy for C.A.Toinsil. The ailment so suffered by him had a nexus with the cause of the cancer but it was not disclosed at the time of getting the insurance cover in his favour. Mr. Sheetal Kumar advocate has appeared in proxy on behalf of Mr. S.C.Gupta advocate for the respondent and makes fervent pleas to get the case adjourned as his senior is very much busy in some other courts. 2. After going through the record of the appeal it transpires that the appeal is pending disposal from 12.01.2004 and the medical claim raised by the respondent is ten years old. In the presence of Mr. Sheetal Kumar advocate, the impugned order has been perused and we find that it does not suffer from any factual error or legal infirmity. On the basis of the evidence the Forum has come to the conclusion that husband of the respondent (insured) had not will fully suppressed any vital information with respect to the disease which caused his death. Sheetal Kumar advocate, the impugned order has been perused and we find that it does not suffer from any factual error or legal infirmity. On the basis of the evidence the Forum has come to the conclusion that husband of the respondent (insured) had not will fully suppressed any vital information with respect to the disease which caused his death. It is an admitted legal position that insurer (appellant herein) had to prove that there had been nexus between the cause of death and the disease allegedly suppressed. Consumer Protection Act is a social piece of legislation and main object of the Act is the speedy decision of the genuine claims in a summary way and in equitable manner. R. 10 of Consumer Protection Rules has given discretion to the Commission even to decide an appeal in exparte on merits. In the case in hand the Learned counsel of the appellant has been represented by Mr. Sheetal Kumar and in his presence the record has been scanned but no evidence has been found which supports the pleas raised by the appellant in his memo of appeal. In this view of the matter; we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with cost of 4,000/-. The appeal is consigned to records and record of the Forum be returned at once.