BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 8 of 2016
Mr. Nur Islam Laskar, ………………………………… Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The Branch Manager, PNB. MetLife Insurance Co. Ltd.
Shyama Prasad Road,
Silchar, Cachar,Assam…………………………… Opp. Party No.1.
2. TheRegd. Office PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Unit No.101, 1st Floor, Techniplex Complex,
Veer Savarkar Flyover, Off S V Road Goregaon
(West) Mumbai Maharastra. 400062…………… Opp. Party No.2.
3. The Brigade Seshamahal No.5, Vani Vilas Road,
Basavanagudi Banglore. 560004. Karnataka……. Opp. Party No.3.
4. Sri Sudhir D.K, The Sr. Executive Grievance Redressal Team,
PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Unit No.101, 1st Floor, Techniplex Complex,
Veer Savarkar Flyover, Off S V Road Goregaon
(West) Mumbai Maharastra. 400062…………… Opp. Party No.4.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Mr. Imdadul Hussain Barbhuiya, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Niladri Ray, Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence 15-10-2016, 03-02-2017
Date of written argument 21-09-2017, 30-10-2017
Date of Argument 27-11-2017
Date of judgment 13-12-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- This case has been brought by Mr. Nur Islam Laskar under Consumer Protection Act,1986 for award of compensation because the Branch Manager PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. has repudiated the death claim of his father late Monir Uddin Laskar.
- The brief facts of the case is mentioned below:-
Late Monir Uddin Laskar purchased an Insurance Policy from the Branch Manager PNB MetLife on 28-01-2015 vide insurance policy No.21484346. Sum assured was Rs.8,18,000/- (Rupees Eight Lac Eighteen Thousand) only. The complainant was nominee. Accordingly, deceased Monir Uddin Laskar paid 25,772/- as half yearly premium but unfortunately after few days on 30-03-2015 he expired due to Cardio Respiratory failure. Accordingly, a claim application submitted by the complainant to the O.P. But the said claim has been repudiated by the O.P with the plea that the deceased life assured disclose a false date of birth in the proposal form and also did not disclose the material fact regarding heart disease.
- Notice issued as per the procedure of Consumer Protection Act to the O.P Branch Manager and two others. All the O.Ps jointly submitted their W/S. In the W/S stated inter-alia that at the time of filing the proposal form the deceased life assured Monir Uddin Laskar disclose false date of birth and provided a false certificate to prove his age and also conceal the material fact regarding his medical conditions of health for which as per rule and regulation the claim has been repudiated.
- During hearing the complainant deposed as P.W-1 and exhibited 8 (Eight) documents including Insurance Policy, death certificate and medical prescription etc. The O.P also examined Motty John, General Manager, Legal and exhibited some documents including a medial prescription, a certificate of Gaon Panchayat President, another certificate of Gaon Panchayat Member and voter list of the deceased to establish the fact that at the time of purchasing the Insurance Policy the life assured Monir Uddin Laskar was not 56 years but 85 years and he died of due to heart problem. However, after closing evidence both the parties submitted their written argument. We have also heard the oral argument of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant.
- In this case it is admitted fact that Insurance Policy was purchased on 28-01-2015 and the life assured Monir Uddin Laskar died on 30-03-2015 due to respiratory failure. However, the plea of the O.P is that the claim has been repudiated basically on two material ground i.e. age and disease. The O.P tried to establish fact that at the time of purchasing the Insurance Policy the life assured filled up the proposal form but in the proposal form he has mentioned his date of birth as 20-09-1958 and also mentioned that he was free from the scheduled disease mentioned in the proposal form which includes high blood pressure, chest pain, heart attack but after enquiring, it is revealed that at the time of purchasing the policy he was 85 years to support that plea. The O.P produce a medical prescription of Dr. P.C. Sarma and a voter list in addition of two certificate regarding his age issued by the Member and President of Gaon Panchayat. As per those documents he was 85 years at the time of purchasing the insurance policy. But the Ld. Advocate of the complainant raised objection in respect of liability in the aforesaid documents. Accordingly, the medical prescription of Dr. P.C. Sarma was verified. Dr. Sarma in the verification report stated that the said prescription was issued by him. But at the time of argument the Ld. Advocate of the complainant tried to convince this District Forum that the said medical prescription may not be issued in favour of the life assumed Monir Uddin Laskar because no information regarding address of the patient has been mentioned in the prescription. Moreover, he argued that the age mentioned in the medical prescription cannot be treated as genuine because the said age is written by some other person but not by Dr. P.C. Sarma. Moreover, it is not revealed from the prescription as whether the age was written on the basis of the statement of the patient or attendance to the patient or it was written on the basis of any admitted document. We find reasoning to the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant that is why, it is of opinion that the age mentioned in the prescription cannot be treated as genuine information. But in this case 3 (Three) more documents are available. These documents are voter list, certificate of Member and President of Gaon Punchayat where the life assured Monir Uddin Laskar was residing. In both the certificate the Member and President mentioned that the deceased was 86 year at the time of death on 30-03-2015. The voter list for the year 2014 also reflected name of Monir Uddin Laskar in Serial No.247. His age also mentioned in the said voter list along with his wife and son. Name of his daughter-in-law Rasna Begum is also available in the serial No.250. As mentioned in that voter list also supported the other documents mentioned here in above. Therefore, the plea taken by the O.P regarding the age of the deceased Monir Uddin Laskar is believable and reliable.
- We have also gone through the contents of the proposal form and evidence of the complainant but do not find any convincing material in favour of the complainant to opine that at the time of purchasing Insurance Policy Monir Uddin Laskar was not 85 years rather 56 years. In the proposal form though it is mentioned that Monir Uddin Laskar was not suffering from angina, chest pain heart attack or any other ailment pertaining to the heart or circulatory system, but it is admitted fact that he died of chest pain. The O.P side submitted the prescription of Dr. P.C. Sarma. The said prescription was issued on 27-01-2015 and Dr. P.C. Sarma admitted that fact in the verification report that he issued the said prescription on the aforesaid date vide his letter dated 27-06-2017.
- It is also revealed from the proposal form that the said proposal form received by the O.P-Insurance. Co. on 27-01-2015 i.e. on the same date and received the insurance policy on 28-01-2015 and he died within 2 (two) months from the date of purchasing the insurance policy.
- Therefore, in our considered view above evidence are sufficient to presume that at the time of purchasing the Insurance policy. It was in the knowledge of the deceased Monir Uddin Laskar that he was suffering from heart ailment but in the proposal form concealed that fact.
- Hence, this District Forum after considering all aspect including evidence on record, reach to a clear finding that the deceased Monir Uddin Laskar (life assured) suppressed the relevant material fact including his age and ailment in the proposal form and in that way misleaded the Insurance Co. to sell the insurance policy to him by accepting the half yearly premium of Rs.25,772/-. So, this District Forum has declined to grant any relief to the complainant.
- With the above, this case is dismissed on contest without any cost. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 13th day of December, 2017
