BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 20th day of November, 2008
C.C.No. 104/08
Between:
Smt. B. Achamma, W/o. Late Sri Bandi Bali Reddy,
Mukkamala Village, Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District.
… Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India,
Dhone.
2. The Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C of India,
Divisional Office College Road, Kadapa.
..Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. G.Md. Habeebur Rahiman, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.104/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act, seeking direction on opposite parties to pay assured amount of Rs. 1 lakh with 12% interest p.a , compensation , cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs, which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant’s husband has obtained a policy bearing No.652428728 on 28-06-2002 from opposite party No.1 for Rs. 1 lakh and nominated the complainant as his nominee . Due to financial problems the due premium could not be paid and the policy was lapsed and it was revived on 10-01-2005 by submitting personal statement. On 04-05-2005 the complainant died due to ill health , as nominee the complainant submitted claim form for assured amount, but the opposite parties vide letter dated 18-03-2008 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that deceased did not disclose his correct age and admitted the claim to paid up value of Rs.48,567/- only. But the complainant submits that the policy holder was an illiterate and do not know correct age and no records are there to show his correct age, as such the repudiation of claim by opposite parties is on flimsy grounds and amounts deficiency of service.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the letter dated 18-03-2008 of opposite party No.2 to complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above document is marked as Ex.A1 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case.. The opposite party No.2 filed written version and opposite party No.1 filed adoption memo.
5. The written version of opposite parties denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts, but admits the deceased B.Bali Reddy has taken a policy bearing No. 652428728 for Rs. 1 lakh which commenced from 28-06-2002 . The said policy was revived on 10-01-2005, as it was lapsed for a total sum assured by submitting personal statement regarding health. The policy holder submitted proposal answering the question No.2 requiring him to give his age nearer birthday, and he furnished his age as 50 years and also he declared his age as 50 years in notarized stamped declaration dated 30-06-2000, as per the house hold card on the date of revival it was found that the policy holder was 68 years and as per the voter’s identity card on the date of revival, the policy holder was 60 years . The age of the policy holder’s 3rd son on the date of revival was 33 years. As such the policy holder under stated his age by 5 years and thus the ill health of life assured could have been ascertained before to acceptance of risk. From the above, it is evident that the policy holder deliberately with held material information regarding his age at the time of getting the policy revived . Hence, the revival of the policy is declared void and the claim is admitted to paid up value along with bonus for Rs.48,567/- and there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz., (1) Election Identity Card, (2) attested Xerox copy of House hold card, (3) true copy of transfer copy of Bandi Shankar Reddy, (4) Claimants statement, (5) personal statement regarding health, (6) policy bond, (7) proposal form, (8) notarized declaration of age of policy holder , (9) delegation of powers , besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 in reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B9 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
8. It is the case of the Complainant that her husband has taken a policy bearing no. 652428728 for Rs. 1,00,000/- vide Ex.B6. The Ex.B7 is the proposal form for obtaining policy in Ex.B6. The policy holder Bali Reddy died on dated 04-05-2006 and a claim was put forth by the Complainant / Nominee for assured amount which was repudiated vide Ex.A1 letter dated 18-03-2008 of opposite party No.2 to Complainant on the ground that the policy holder has with held information regarding his age and settled the claim to paid up value along with bonus to Rs.48,567/-. In their written version the opposite parties submitted that the policy holder knowingly suppressed material information of his actual age at the time of taking policy and there is difference in the age of the deceased as giving in election identity card (Ex.B1) and house hold card (Ex.B2) and his age was shown as 50 years in the policy, as such the policy holder under sated his age by 5 years.
9. The opposite parties after accepting the age of the policy holder mentioned in Ex.B7 proposal form and Ex.B8 notarized declaration of the age of the policy holder, issued Ex.B6 policy, and premiums for the said policy were realized with out any objection and the policy was revived accepting the Ex.B5 personal statement regarding health without any objection and it is on the death of the insured that his grave is being dug to make post mortem of his policy. All these enquiries should have been made at the very outset, when the policy was issued. The opposite parties never asked the complainant to establish the age of her deceased husband/policy holder after she laid her claim and that the disputation regarding the age of the deceased/policy holder at a belated stage doesn’t stand to reason.
10. It is not the case of the opposite parties that to a person like the insured no policy could have been issued or he was a person who could not have been insured. It is the case of the opposite parties that policy could not have been given to the insured if he disclosed his correct age. To revert back the same argument, the opposite parties to have inquired about the actual age of the insured in his life time itself, actually the opposite parties were satisfied with the age mentioned in Ex.B7 proposal form and Ex.B8 notarized declaration of age of policy holder, as to the age of the policy holder as 50 years. Hence, now during the enquiry of this case in this forum the opposite parties submitted that in the election identity card issued to the policy holder vide Ex.B1, and house holders card in Ex.B2 the age of the policy holder was mentioned as 50 years as on 01-01-1995 and 70 years in house hold card on 09-03-2007, the particulars given in the election identity card and house hold card have nexus to prove the age of the policy holder. The effect of election identity card is for registration of a person to vote, where in he is entitled to vote in an election and house hold card is issued to sanction ration to that family but to prove the age of that person election identity card and house hold card cannot be an evidence to be relied on. The opposite party having accepted the insurance coverage to the policy holder under the said policy at the relevant time by accepting the age of the policy holder mentioned in the proposal and issued policy bond, now cannot take a stand that the policy holder understated his age by 5 years. Election identity card issued only for the purpose of voting and for estimation of the age of a person, election identity card cannot be relied up on, we have seen the election rolls where the age of the father has been written as 40 years and that of the son as 60 years. In India in villages the age of the country side man is not a relevant factor to be accurate and such is the case of the present insured. There is nothing on record to show that who has recorded the age of the policy holder in Ex.B1 election identity card and house hold card in Ex.B2 and the particulars mentioned in Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 cannot prove that the age of the policy holder mentioned there in as correct. In the proposal form and in the notarized declaration of age of policy holder, the age the policy holder is estimated as 50 years and then is nothing on record to disbelieve this age. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was not such that which should have been rejected on these formal grounds.
11. The Complainant in support of his case relied on the decision of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in III 1998 CPJ, Page 489, between LIC of India and Others Vs Lotavath Miryali, where in, it was held that, when there is a dispute regarding age of the policy holder, shown as 78 years in Voters List and 55 years in Ration Card and the Opposite Parties disputing regarding the age of the policy holder at a belated stage did not stand to reason and directed the Opposite Parties to pay insured amount to the Nominee.
12. To sum up, as the opposite parties miserably failed to substantiate their case by filling any cogent relevant material and the complainant is certainly remaining entitled to the assured amount under the policy of her husband B.Bali Reddy.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the policy bearing No. 653728985 of B. Bali Reddy with 9% interest for the date of filling of this complaint i.e., 25-06-2008 along with costs of Rs.1,000/- with in one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default, the opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay the supra award amount with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20th day of November, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Letter dated 18-03-2008 of OP.No.2 to complainant
For entaining claim for paid up value along with bonus
For Rs.48,567/-.
.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Election Identity card.
Ex.B2. Attested Xerox copy of House Hold Card.
Ex.B3. True copy of Transfer Copy of Bandi Shankar Reddy.
Ex.B4. Claimants Statement.
Ex.B5. Personal Statement regarding health.
Ex.B6. Policy bond.
Ex.B7. Proposal form.
Ex.B8. Notarized declaration of age of policy holder.
Ex.B9. Delegation of powers.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
