Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/256/2018

Ram lal s/o Nathu Jat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurnce Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Gandhi

30 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 256 /2018

 

Shri Ramlal s/o Nathu r/o village Daulatpura 1^st, Tehsil Masuda Distt. Ajmer.

Vs.

Aviva Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Br.office- 4^th floor, Upon Vishal Mega Mart, Opp.T.T.College, Jaipur Road, Ajmer & ors.

 

Date of Order 30.8.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. S.P.Gandhi counsel for the appellant

Mr.Ramkalyan Sharma counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

The appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Ajmer dated 1.2.2018 whereby the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the insured has written her incorrect date of birth.

 

The contention of the appellant is that age of the insured was submitted as per voter ID hence, the claim should have been allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that complaint has rightly been dismissed. The respondent has also submitted documents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to show that the date of birth of the insured son's is 1.1.62 hence, the age of the mother cannot be 1.1.53.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case. Respondent has also submitted written arguments.

 

The first contention of the appellant is that application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been rejected as at the appellate stage without any plausible cause the documents

3

 

cannot be accepted and reliance has been placed on I (2006) CPJ 127 (NC) Sanatan Financier Vs. Surinder Singh and IV (2014) CPJ 102 (Chhat.) Ibne Hasan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. where the applicant was trying to introduce new elements. The documents submitted by way of application are relevant and there is no allegation to the effect that the documents are forged one hence, taken on record.

 

As per record of the Forum below the proposal form was filled by the insured on 30.3.2012 showing her date of birth as 1.1.53 and to support this contention voter ID has been submitted. Now the appellant has submitted the income tax Pan Card but in proposal form it has been specifically mentioned that this clause is not applicable meaning thereby that Pan Card was not available with the insured at that time. As per Pan Card the date of birth of the insured was 31.12.52 but the copy of the Pan Card could not show the date of issue and proposal form clearly speaks that on the day of the filling of the proposal form Pan Card was not available with the insured.

 

The respondent has submitted the documents about the

4

 

age of son of the insured Ramlal and as per record his date of birth is 1.1.62 hence, it was biologically not possible for the mother to have her age as 1.1.53 and further more the appellant himself has submitted the voter list of Panchayat wherein age of the insured was shown as 75 years and age of his son Ramlal is shown as 47 years which also corroborates the documents submitted by the insurance company regarding the age detail of Ramlal.

 

In appeal the appellant has also submitted copy of voter ID wherein the age of the insured is shown as 60 years on 1.1.95 which clearly reveals that date of birth of the insured was not 1.1.53 and incorect age has been shown.

 

The contention of the insurance company is that voter ID has been forged in relation to age and voter ID in which her age is shown as 42 years in 1995 has been submitted.

 

The appellant has relied upon II (2011) CPJ 7 (NC) LIC of India Vs. Gopal Singh where the Hon'ble National Commission is of the view that voter list is not a sure test to determine exact age of a person. The appellant has also relied

5

 

upon II (2019) CPJ 511 (NC) Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Vs. Shaheb Hussain wherein Pan Card was submitted and there was no dispute about the Pan Card which is not the case here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 242/2018 Prabhulal Vs. Exide Life Insurance where different documents were submitted to show the age of the insured which is not the case here.

 

Per contra the respondent has relied upon I (2019) CPJ 157 (NC) Gulab Singh Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance, I (2014) CPJ 502 (NC) Bharti Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance and I (2009) CPJ 141 Rajrani Vs. LIC of India wherein incorrect age was disclosed and repudiation was found justified.

 

The contention of the appellant is that insured was illeterate and agent has filled the proposal form hence, she cannot be held guilty of suppression but the respondent has relied upon I (2015) CPJ 259 (NC) Lakbhir Kaur Vs. LIC of

6

 

India wherein the National Commission has held that when exact date of birth is being filled the petitioner should explain that why the agent has filled the exact date of birth. Here in the present case in voter ID the exact date of birth has not been filled but on the instructions of the insured date of birth is filled as 1.1.53 which is clear case of suppression of material fact.

 

Further respondent has relied upon III (2009 ) CPJ 38 (NC) LIC of India Vs. Yogendra Prasad where father's date of birth was 18.10.1950 and son's date of birth was 1.5.1954 and the National Commission has held that material information is withheld by not disclosing correct date of birth of the insured. Similar is the case here the date of birth of the mother was 1.1.53 whereas the date of birth of the son is 1.1.62 which is evident from the policy record submitted by the respondent as well as voter list of panchayat submitted by the appellant himeslf.

 

Further reliance has been placed on III (2012) CPJ 316 (NC) Magna Nand Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, III (2003) CPJ 577 Parveen Gupta Vs. General

7

 

Manager Telecom Deptt. and I (2016) CPJ 110 (NC) Mahesh Kumar Vs.MG Motors where on the facts of the case the National Commission has held that the complainant should go to the civil court which is not the case here.

 

The respondent has further relied upon II (2012) CPJ 272 (NC) LIC of India Vs. Kusum Patro and judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1274/2011 LIC of India Vs. Krishna Devi where incorrect information about health status was furnished which is not the case here.

 

In view of the above , the Forum below has rightly held that incorrect information regarding age has been furnished and complaint has rightly been dismissed. There is no merit in this appeal and stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm