Order

                        The complainant has  filed her case for claim of insurance policy arises  after death of her father in law  (L.A) for Rs. 5 lakh insured amount, Rs. 1 lakh physical mental, harassment, and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.

            The case of complainant  in nutshell  appears from her  complaint petition filed on 11-12-2017 supported with an affidavit alleging there in that her father in law now late- Jainandan Singh has purchased a Vima policy in his life time, policy bearing No.- 501/1392148 for Rs. 4,86,245/- in his name and he made complainant  as nominee in the said policy. Further she  has alleged, that unfortunately L.A died  on 21-05-2014 which she has informed  the o.p insurance company after concluding Shradh Ceremony  of L.A and as per direction of  o.p no.1 she has applied for claim payment  with original bond paper, death certificate and identity card, and other relevant papers on which she was assured that the claim amount will be paid to her  at the earliest but o.p has not paid the claim amount and lastly she has filed petition to o.p no.1 dated 17-01-2017 against which in reply dated 25-01-2017 which received on 05-02-2017 from which she acknowledge that the death claim has been rejected on baseless ground on 29-06-2015 which is wrong  and  discrepancy arises against the o.p. and actually she has filed this case with aforesaid allegation and claim.

The complainant  has filed Xerox copies   of  policy specification dated 23-10-2013 from which the assured amount is Rs. 4,86,245/- and the payment mode is annual for 15 years, first premium receipt for Rs. 49,901.43 paisa paid on 23-10-2013,  deposited receipt dated 22-10-2013 for Rs. 49,902. (KCC) in the name of complainant , application for claim indorsed to  o.p dated 18-01-2017 PAN Card of L.A Jainandan Singh Chauhan, , death certificate  issued on 02-06-2014 by Panchat Sachiv, mentioning the date of death is21-05-2014 of L.A. Jainandan Singh Chaurasiya and copy of voter list of 2010 find mentioning the name of L.A. at  serial No.- 272 no other paper has been filed.

In this case opposite party no. 1 & 2 appeared and filed his written statement supported with an affidavit dated 22-05-2017 with preliminary objection that the case is false, frivolous and abuse of process of law and relied on the decisions published in (1984) 1 SCC 424 and (2000) 6 SCC 724, 2013 (1)  SCALE 410, (2010) 10 SCC 567 revision petition  no. 211/2009, (1966) 3 SCR 5000 and I (2003) CPJ 393 and II 2009. CPJ 34 and further alleged accepting the policy  issued on 23-10-2013 the main objection from his w.s. that  L.A had  passed away within a period approximately 5 month from the date of policy in question, the company commenced and investigation regarding the genuineness    and claim by  independent investigating  agency, from which it reveals that the  L.A was not aged about 52 years as mentioned in his proposal form but was actually more than 55 years of age and the  investigating agency had also obtained the ration card from which his age appears 58 years in 2008  it means L.A was around 63 years old at the time of taking policy as such it is apparent that the L.A has taken this policy with intent to defraud. The  O.p, investigation report has been attached. And the learned lawyer for the o.p has only stressed on the point of age of L.A that he has suppressed  his age to defraud the o.p and on the aforesaid ground the o.p has prayed to dismiss the case.   

The o.p has filed certain  Xerox copy of  documents, proposal form premium notice premium, reminder, claimant statement, claim investigation report, death certificate issued from Gram Panchat mentioning  the  date of death is 21-05-2014  and certain Xerox copies of papers including the ration  card   which are not visible, death certificate as filed by the complainant, claim rejection letter dated 29-06-2015 from which papers that the claim was repudiated only on the ground of defect found in age of L.A no other paper has been filed by the  o.p.

O.P has filed the Written Argument mentioning the same fact as alleged in his w.s  no new facts has been found mentioned.

Considering the facts, circumstances, material available with the allegation of the respective parties it is apparently clear that o.p has admitted the policy of L.A with amount, premium installment  deposited etc. Only objected on the ground of age that  the L.A has intentionally  after suppressing  his age for consideration to defraud. The o.p taken policy in question and  in this regard the report of his investigation is based from which it appears that the o.p is disputing the age of L.A on the ground of age mentioned in ration card which is not legally acceptable  as age of any person as perfect evidence no other paper and evidence has been submitted by the o.p in their regard as such on mere allegation that L.A has suppressed  his age is not believable and only on  this score the claim cannot be refused accordingly we are of the opinion that the complainant is found able to prove her case against the o.p and she is entitled to get  her claim from o.p . 

Accordingly the case is allowed  o.p is directed  to Pay Rs. 4,86,245/- insured sum with interest @ 8 %  from the date of filing of this case and o.p is directed to further pay Rs. 15,000/- for  physical, mental harassment  as well as litigation cost. The payment should be made within one month  of the order otherwise the complainant is entitled to get it recovered from the process law.