Sawinder Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint against The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called, the OP)  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay claim amount of Rs.6,70,000/- alongwith vested bonus, damages amounting to Rs.50,000/- and interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of the filing of the complaint alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that Bawa Singh son of Bela Singh resident of village Jorrian Kalan got himself insured with the opposite party no.2 vide policy no.0235573292 and 0236335107 and died on 1.6.2012. The applicant has filed the claim before the opposite party no.2 against the above mentioned policy and all the requirements were fulfilled. A letter was received by him on 19.7.2012 under policy No.0236335107 in which the said company requested him to provide documents namely medical certificate of cause of death, original hospital discharge card, bank pass book copy-nominee, cancelled cheque and ECS form.  Further a reminder was also sent on 13.8.2012 under policy no.0235573292 in which the company mentioned the documents received from him. A rejection of claim under policy no.0235573292 on the life of late Mr.Bawa Singh was received by son/nominee of the deceased Sawinder Singh 28.11.2012. The reason mentioned in this letter dated 28.11.2012 to the effect that the death claim under the above mentioned policy has been declined due to the reason that he has given fake document of his age and there is under statement of age by 12 years. The reason mentioned in the letter dated 28.11.2012 is illegal, null and void, inoperative, ineffective and without any force. The said Bawa Singh has mentioned his age correctly and entire documents were fully checked by the opposite parties at the time of issuance of policy. The claim has been illegally repudiated by the opposite parties. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.  

3.       On notice, the OPs filed its written reply taking preliminary objections that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties as the deceased life assured Mr.Bawa Singh deliberately, dishonestly and with a malafide intention submitted fake & FORGED Driving License as proof of his age just to induce the opposite parties to accept the risk on his life. The various investigations and Voter List of Election Commission confirmed that the deceased life assured was not less than 75 years of age at the time of proposal for insurance but he fraudulently mentioned his age as 62 years while answering the questions of the proposals for insurance dated 20.10.2011 & 28.10.2011 and maliciously submitted forged proofs of age just to induce the opposite parties to accept risk on his life. Thus, the deceased knowingly under stated his age by 12 years as he was un-insurable at the time of making the proposals. Had the deceased disclosed his actual age and had not submitted fake & forged documents at the time of proposals of insurance, the risk on his life would not have been accepted. The complainant did not disclose his previous proposal/policy purchased by him in his subsequent proposal in order to deceive the underwriters of the answering opposite parties. Thus, the contracts of insurance  entered into by the deceased on the basis of fake & forged documents grossly understating his, is a vitiated contracts and the policies in question are as such null & void ab-initio. The claim under the policy has therefore, been legally and rightly repudiated and the instant complaint is as such liable to be dismissed at the outset. On merits, it was stated that Mr.Bawa Singh proposed for regular premium non linked Super Cash Gain policies for sum assured of Rs.3,20,000/- and Rs.3,22,000/- and submitted proposal forms duly filled and signed in alongwith the copy of Driving License as proof of age as well as address. The contracts of insurance being contract of Utmost Good Faith, the contents of the proposal forms duly singed by the said proposer were believed to be true and the document submitted were treated to be genuine and correct. Thus, on the basis of the documents and the answers, statements & declaration made by the said Mr.Bawa Singh, the proposals on his life was accepted as proposed and a policy bearing numbers 0235573292 & 0236335107 was issued to him believing the information and documents provided by him to be true and correct. The life assured Mr.Bawa Singh reportedly expired on 01.6.2012 giving rise to a very early death claim thus, the various investigations and records confirmed that the deceased life assured Mr.Bawa Singh deliberately, dishonestly and with a malafide intention submitted fake &forged Driving License as proof of his age just to induce the opposite parties to accept the risk on his life. The claim under the policies has legally and rightly been repudiated for concealment of material facts by the deceased. The complainant is not entitled to Rs.6,70,000/-. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, of Harjinder Singh Ex.C2 and of Davinder Singh Ex.C3, alongwith other documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Sawraj Kumar, Branch Operation Head of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP40 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined the available evidence on the record file so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document determined against the backdrop of the respective arguments of the learned counsels of the litigants. We observe that the prime dispute results from the repudiation (Ex.C4, Ex.OP2 & Ex.OP3) of the insurance death claim by the OP insurers on account of the DLA’s (Deceased Life Assured)’s  ‘understatement of age by 12 years’ in the related proposal form by submitting ‘fake’ Driving License as his proof of age. By the time it has been a settled law that the courts shall not interfere in the IRDA approved terms and conditions of an insurance contract once it carries the acceptance and acknowledgement of the insured. Also, a contract based upon/ having relied upon ‘fake & fraudulent’ document shall certainly be void-ab-initio and as such it shall not be enforceable upon the parties to that contract. Here, we find that the Driving License (Ex.OP25) submitted to the OP insurers as a proof of ‘Date of Birth’ by the complainant turned out to be fake (Ex.OP40) upon verification from the issuing authority. Further, as per the Voter’s List (Ex.OP7) the DLA Bawa Singh (S/o Bela Singh) PB/01/001/054394 was 72 years in age as on 01.01.2008 i.e., he was shown as: 1936/37 born whereas the DLA as per his own self submitted (Ex.OP25) DOB (05.07.1949) proof he is: 1949 born i.e., 12 years younger. No doubt the Surveyors’ Report Ex.OP4/ Ex.OP5 does affirmatively points out (u/para 7) the pecuniary interest of the case adviser/OP’s representatives etc (indicating an unholy alliance between the DLA & the OP’s representatives) but any (disciplinary and/or penal) action being the prerogative of the OP insurers (only) we are not inclined to comment upon the same. We somehow, are also not pleased with the check-free liberal citation on ‘points of law’ by the OP insurers whereas the written statements are to stay confined (by virtue of procedural law as accepted by the practicing advocates) to ‘points of fact’ only. However, these lapses as commented upon above along with the others (uncommented ones) are decidedly of no benefit to the complainant since he cannot but harvest the crops planted by his DLA father during his life time.              

7.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however, no order as to its costs.

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                  (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                     President

ANNOUNCED:                                                   (Jagdeep Kaur)

September 17,2015.                                                        Member               

*MK*