O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1. The complainant sought discharge of outstanding loan obtained by her husband and the same rejected by the opposite party, alleging deficiency of service, she filed this complaint.
2 The allegations in the complaint in brief are that her husband Pothula Krishna Murthy approached 1st opposite party bank for sanction of loan for construction of house who sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- which was to be recovered along with interest @Rs. 11,000/- per month for a period of 10 years. 1st opposite party also directed the husband of complainant to approach 2nd opposite party the insurance company for obtaining policy by paying an amount of Rs.32,444/- as lump-sum premium. Accordingly her husband paid the said amount 04.11.2011 and 2nd opposite party issued a policy and sum assured is Rs. 7,00,000/- 1st opposite party already paid the loan amount Rs.7,00,000/- to her husband. In case the life assured died the entire loan amount stands discharged.
3 While the matters stood thus her husband died on 19.09.2012 and as his nominee she approached opposite parties and submitted the death certificate and also application of discharge of loan. 2nd opposite party rejected the claim on the ground of concealment of material fact and the deceased was aged 68 years at the time of taking the policy. According to her at the time of issuing policy the opposite party verified all the particulars and then only issued policy and her claim was rejected with false allegations. As per certificate of insurance issued by 2nd opposite party the date of birth of her husband age is 01.01.1965. Hence he had not crossed the age of 65 years as on the date 04.11.2011. At the time of taking policy the opposite parties never informed the handicapped person are not entitled for taking policy. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in rejecting her claim and as such she issued a lawyer’s notice to opposite parties. Having received the same, the 1st opposite party issued reply with false allegations. Thus she filed above complaint.
4 The 1st opposite party filed their written version denying the material allegations in the complaint and according to them the deceased obtained policy from 2nd opposite party and they are only a vehicle in forwarding the premium for the policy. As the policy of insurance was involved fidelity concept, it was always subject to probing when a claim is put forward. They are not the authority who rejected the claim of the complainant and it is the 2nd opposite party who rejected the claim. Thus they disputed deficiency of service on their part.
5 The 2nd opposite party filed a detailed written version and sum and substance of the same is that the deceased suppressed the material facts about his having disability and also his given wrong date of birth and on the date of issuance of policy he crossed 65 years and thus they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground and thus according to them there is no deficiency of service on their part.
6 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for a direction as sought in the complaint?
7 Point No.1: There is no dispute the husband of the complainant late Pothula Krishna Murthy taking policy from 2nd opposite party. According to 1st opposite party they acted as a vehicle in forwarding the premium to the 2nd opposite party who issued a policy in favour of the husband of the complainant. As the 2nd opposite party vehemently contended that an account of material suppression of facts and also furnishing of wrong date of birth they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant, the complainant furnished her chief affidavit and exhibited 5 documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 which are xerox copy of certificate of insurance issued by 2nd opposite party, death certificate of her husband, copy of repudiating letter issued by 2nd opposite party, office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by her and reply given by 1st opposite party to the notice issued by the complainant.
8 On the other hand, Head of Governance & CS of India of 2nd opposite party furnished his chief affidavit reiterating the allegations in their written version and exhibited 6 documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 which are copy of proposal form submitted by the deceased, policy documents, copy of school leaving certificate belonging to the deceased, copy of service particulars of the Pension [deceased] furnished by Accountant General, copy of disability certificate issued infavour of the deceased, investigation report submitted by Investigator of 2nd opposite party and copy of repudiation letter send to the complainant. Ex.B6 and Ex.A3 are one and the same.
9 As seen from the proposal form submitted by the deceased he mentioned his date of birth as 01/01/1965 as evidenced under ExB1. According to 2nd opposite party the deceased suppressed his real date of birth and furnished wrong date of birth and his real date of birth is 15/07/1943 as evidenced under Ex.B3 which is the copy of school leaving certificate and also service particulars issued by the Accountant General. Thus if we consider his date of birth furnished under these documents the deceased cross 65 years on the date of taking policy where as in proposal form the deceased mentioned his date of birth as 01/01/1965 which is false one, in view of the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate and also the pension particulars submitted by Accountant General.
10 The complainant has not disputed the version of 2nd opposite party that the persons who are above age of 65 years are not entitled for taking policy. Furthermore as seen from Ex.B6 the disability certificate the deceases sustained 60% disability. According to 2nd opposite party even in the year 2001, the deceased met with an accident and his left shoulder was amputated and as such he sustained permanent disability, factum is also not furnished in the proposal form submitted by the deceased. Hence under these circumstances what is manifest is the deceased suppressed material facts while obtaining the policy from 2nd opposite party and they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part. Hence this point is answered against the complainant.
11. Point No.2: In view of the finding rendered under point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought by her in the complaint. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 28th day of April, 2015.
Sd/-xxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:
Sri Pothula Suramma
For opposite parties:
Sri K.R. Viswanarayan, Head-Governance & C.S. of India
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Xerox copy of certificate of insurance issued by 2nd opposite party
Ex.A2 Death certificate of her husband
Ex.A3 Copy of repudiating letter issued by 2nd opposite party
Ex.A4 Office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant
Ex.A5 Reply given by 1st opposite party to the notice issued by the complainant.
For opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Copy of proposal form submitted by the deceased
Ex.B2 Policy documents
Ex.B3 Copy of school leaving certificate belonging to the deceased and copy of service particulars of the Pension [deceased] furnished by Accountant General
Ex.B4 Copy of disability certificate issued infavour of the deceased
Ex.B5 Investigation report submitted by Investigator of 2nd opposite party
Ex.B6 Copy of repudiation letter send to the complainant.
Sd/-xxxxx Sd/-xxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
