Case No. 166/2014   

IN THE MATTER OF

Sukhveer Singh S/o Sri Ramjeet Singh R/o Gram Pipali Kalan Post Nagala Jagdev Tehsil Iglas , Aligarh

                             (Through: Advocate Ved Prakash Sharma)

                                           V/s

1. Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. 612 A/2 Opp. Prakash Launze Begpur Kanjaula Ramghat Road, Aligarh
2. Manager Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. West Hub IInd Floor Bajaj Fieancer Servey 208/1B behind week field Building Viman Nagar, Nagar Road Pune, Maharastra                                                    (Through: Advocate Diwakar Agrawal)

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhyaya, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1.  The Ops be directed to pay the assured sum Rs.535000/with interest.
2. The Ops be directed to pay expenses Rs.10000/.
3. The Ops be directed to pay compensation for harassment at Rs.50000/.
4. The Ops be directed to pay litigation expenses Rs.5000/.

2. Complainant stated that the agent got signed the proposal form by his brother which was filled by the agent. The proposal form was written in English and his brother did not know how to read and write English. The agent after signing the proposal form by his brother had gone with the papers and Rs. 40427/. The agent supplied the papers of policy no. 0306174656 after about one and half month. On 16.11.2013 the policy holder Komal Singh had died and claim was presented by the complainant. the Ops rejected the claim on the ground that the policy holder was convicted U/s 302 IPC, this fact was concealed. The policy holder was not a convict on 19.9.2013 and simply a case U/s 323 IPC was pending. The policy holder was not having knowledge of the fact that a convict or a person against whom a case is pending, is not competent for insurance. This fact was not brought to the notice of policy holder by the agent. On the death of the insured the complainant is entitled for the assured sum Rs. 535000/ and he has incurred Rs.10000/ for fare and notice.
3. OPs have stated that the policy holder Komal Singh after understanding entire terms and conditions in Hindi as stated in proposal from furnished the information at column no.17 of the proposal from. That he was not convicted in the court of Law and no criminal proceeding was pending against him in a court. The policy holder had also given declaration in the proposal form that if any statement provided by him is found false and frivolous the contact between the parties shall become void. It was revealed in investigation that the policy holder was facing trial since before taking the policy and he was convicted in ST no. 302/2001 on 6.10.2010 against which appeal was preferred in which he was released on bail. The insurance company had covered the risk on the basis of facts mentioned in proposal form dated 19.9.2013 had the facts were disclosed by the policy holder in the proposal form the insurance company would not have covered the risk under the policy.
4.  Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. And Ops have also filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the Policy holder had concealed the material fact? If so its effect.
7. The proposal form of the policy was filled on 19.9.2013 in which it was denied that the policy holder was a convict and a criminal case was pending against him. Insurance Company has stated that the policy holder was convicted on 6.10.2010 in ST no.302/2001 and criminal appeal no. 2010 was preferred against the convection and he was released on bail by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 8.10.2010. Insurance Company has filed documentary proof in support of its version. Thus it stand proved that the material fact was concealed in proposal form for obtaining the policy. Complainant has stated that the policy holder was not informed about this fact by the agent at the time of filling the proposal form and form was filled up by the agent and got signed by the agent. Complainant has not impleaded the agent to meet the allegations stated against him and in absence of agent it cannot be concluded that the agent got the proposal form sign by the policy holder against the information given by the policy holder and the proposal form was fraudulently filled up by the agent. Thus it is found that the policy holder had concealed the material fact in the proposal form for obtaining the policy. The insurance policy is a contract and concealment of material fact vitiates the contract and renders void. Accordingly complainant is not entitled for the assured sum.   
8. The question formulated above is decided against the complainant.
9. We hereby dismissed the complaint.
10. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
11. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.