BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 64 of 2015
Date of Institution: 27.3.2015
Date of Decision : 23.12.2016
Charanjeet Kaur wife of Baljit Singh, resident of village Jhanda Kalan, District Mansa (Punjab).
…Complainant.
Versus.
1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office near Petrol Pump, near Maruti Show room and ICICI Bank, Dabwali road, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Claims Department, G Group Tech Park, 6th Floor Cashar Vadavali Ghodebunder Road Thane 400601 through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.Lohia …………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ashish Goel, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that her husband, since deceased had purchased a life insurance policy No.005953823 for the sum of Rs.5,93,000/- from the opposite parties on 7.2.2013 by making payment of premium to the ops. The husband of complainant died on 19.3.2013 during policy period. Being nominee and legal heir, complainant lodged claim with the ops for the benefit of the policy. The grievance of the complainant against the ops is that vide letter dated 19.12.2013 ops wrongly repudiated her genuine claim on the false ground that Baljeet Singh died before the application for insurance. Hence, this complaint seeking the relief as detailed in prayer clause of the complaint.
2. On notice, ops appeared and replied that cardinal principle of contract of life insurance is Uberrama Fides i.e. the principle of utmost good faith. It is further replied that as per the information provided and supplied in the proposal form, one Baljeet Singh had applied for an insurance policy with the ops and ops considering the information supplied by the life assured and considering the person original had issued the policy. The ops within a very short time, were in receipt of death claim form from the complainant and upon perusal of the same and as per the death certificate attached with the claim form, it has been revealed to the ops that the life assured passed away on 19.3.2013. However, being an early claim i.e. within one month from commencement of the policy, the ops had processed the case for conducting necessary investigation and during which, it has been revealed to the ops that the death certificate is forged one and the life assured much prior to the purchase of policy i.e. on 28.1.2013 has passed away and the policy in question is the result of misrepresentation so played by the complainant upon ops in collusion with the agent which is the near relative of the life assured. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of investigation, it has been primarily established that the husband of complainant passed away on 28.1.2013 due to consuming of poisonous substance and policy in question has been purchased just to put undue loss upon ops. So, from the above serious of events on the date of death of life assured, no concluded contract came into existence and ops have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant and complaint deserves dismissal.
3. By way of evidence, complainant filed her affidavit Ex.C1 and repudiation letter dated 19.12.2013 Ex.C2. Whereas the ops produced affidavit of Akriti Manocha, Assistant Manager Legal Ex.RW1/A, copy of application form for insurance Ex.R1, repudiation letter Ex.R2 and investigation report Ex.R3, copy of claim form submitted by complainant Ex.R4, report with affidavit and conclusion Ex.R5 and copy of policy Ex.R6, copy of letter Ex.R7.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. Written argument submitted on behalf of ops also perused.
5. The main question to be determined by us is that whether ops rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant or not? According to the opposite parties, the investigation got done by them revealed that Baljeet Singh actually died on 28.1.2013 i.e. prior to purchase of policy in question due to consumption of poisonous substance and not on 19.3.2013 and policy has been obtained by the complainant after misrepresentation. In this regard, the ops have relied upon investigation report Ex.R3 and report Ex.R5. In the investigation, the Investigator has alleged to have recorded statement of Nanak Singh neighbor of deceased Baljeet Singh which has been annexed with the investigation report according to which in the month of January, 2013 Baljeet consumed spray due to some family dispute and died. The investigator has further annexed copy of certificate of Sarpanch of village Jhanda Kalan having signatures of Sarpanch with seal and it is certified by the Sarpanch that Baljeet Singh son of Bachan Singh was very well known by him and he died on 28.1.2013 due to consumption of spray. The complainant has not produced any affidavit of any neighbor or Sarpanch of the village to negate the above said statements or to prove that the above said persons did not make any statement before the Investigator or to prove that Baljeet Singh actually died on 19.3.2013. Even if it is presumed that said Baljeet Singh died on 19.3.2013 then also the complainant is not entitled to his death benefits because in the claim form Ex.R4 complainant has mentioned the cause of death of her husband due to consumption of poison and in the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R6, there is restriction of committing suicide within one year after the policy issue date or revival date. The complainant has even failed to prove the death certificate of her husband. The complainant has failed to prove her oral assertions and therefore, has failed to prove her case. Learned counsel for ops has relied observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Devdutt Vs. Kamlesh & anr. Revision Petition No.2141 of 2015 decided on 10.3.2016 (NC) wherein it has been held that “It is rudimentary principle of jurisprudence that documentary evidence will always get preponderance over the oral evidence because it is well known axiom of law that ‘men may tell lies, but the documents cannot.’ The above said authority is fully applicable in this case. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that ops have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
6. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:23.12.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
