Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 17.08.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal preferred by Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., the Respondent herein, has been allowed and the order dated 02.02.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum), allowing the Complaint preferred by the Petitioner herein, has been set aside.

It appears that the father of the Petitioner/Complainant, namely, Jagir Singh, got an insurance policy by submitting the proposal form on 31.01.2012.  In the proposal form, the date of birth of the Insured Jagir Singh was mentioned as 01.01.1967.  The proposal form was signed by Mr. Jagir Singh in Hindi whereas the proposal form was filled in English.  The submission is that the proposal form was filled in by the broker/agent of the Insurance Company and the details mentioned therein were not explained to the Insured.  The Insured died on 03.05.2012 at 9.00 p.m. due to electric shock from pedestal fan.  The insurance claim was submitted by the Petitioner being his son.  The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the Insured had given a wrong date of birth in the proposal form and, therefore, there is no liability for payment of any insurance claim.

The District Forum, relying upon the ration card and other documents submitted by the Petitioner/Complainant, accepted the Complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the insured amount along with certain other benefits.

Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company preferred the Appeal before the State Commission.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal, holding that the Insured had given a wrong date of birth in the proposal form and, therefore, the Petitioner/Complainant is disentitled from making any claim under the insurance policy.  The State Commission has relied upon various documents filed in support of the plea raised by the Insurance Company.  Most relevant is the PAN Card issued to the Insured, showing his date of birth as 03.01.1953 and also the PAN Card issued to the Petitioner herein, which showed his date of birth as 11.12.1976.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that if the date of birth as disclosed by the Insured in the proposal form is taken as correct, then the Petitioner could not be born within 9 years and, therefore, the date of birth shown in the PAN Card of the Insured is the correct date of birth.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not dispute regarding the date of his birth having been shown in the PAN Card as 11.12.1976.  There cannot be any dispute that if the date of birth as given by the Insured in the proposal form is to be taken into consideration as 01.01.1967, then the Petitioner could not have been born within 9 years of that and, therefore, the date of birth of the Insured as mentioned in the PAN Card i.e. 03.01.1953 is the correct date of birth.

That being the situation, the Insured had given a wrong date of birth in the proposal form, which would make the Insured only 45 years of age at the time of filling in the proposal form for obtaining the insurance policy whereas factually the Insured would have been 59 – 60 years of age at the time when the proposal form was filled in.  If the correct age was mentioned by the Insured, then the Insurance Company would have taken some other decision instead of issuing the policy in question.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the State Commission was perfectly justified in allowing the Appeal of the Insurance Company and dismissing the Complaint.  The order of the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.