| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 43 of 2013 Sorif Uddin, ………………………………………………… Complainant. -V/S- 1. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered and corporate office at Delphi-B Wing, 2nd Floor, Orchard Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. O.P No.1. 2. The Branch Manager, Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited, S.P. Road, Shillongpatty, Silchar-1. O.P No.2. 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. Mazibur Rahman Barbhuiya, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Debabrata Deb & Rahul Nath, Advocate for the O.Ps. Date of Evidence……………………….. 20-02-2014 Date of written argument……………… 03-04-2017, 17-06-2017 Date of oral argument………………….. 20-07-2017 Date of judgment………………………. 11-08-2017 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Debnath, - The Complainant Sorif Uddin being the son cum nominee of the deceased Suag Ali brought this case against Tata AIG Life Insurance Company and its Branch Manager of Silchar Branch for award of compensation and sum assured for life of his deceased father vide Insurance Policy No. C093632281 because the O.P-Insurance Company repudiated the claim illegally though his father the insured died during the coverage of risk period on 20-11-2011.
- The Insurance Company in the joint W/S stated inter-alia that the insured declared wrong information regarding his occupation and annual income in the proposal form, for which the claim was repudiated.
- During hearing the Complainant deposed on oath and exhibited Insurance Policy, Death Certificate of insured, copy of letter of repudiation of claim including judgment of insurance ombudsman. The O.P examined Sweta Sarma as D.W and exhibited insurance proposal, Income Certificate, BPL, Ration Card etc.
- After closing evidence, the complainant and O.Ps submitted their written argument. We have also heard the Ld. Advocate of the parties and perused the evidence on record.
- In this case in view of evidence on record, it is concluded that insurance policy purchased on 25-10-2010 and insured died on 20-11-2010, the sum assured was Rs.3,75,000/- and half yearly premium was received by the insurance company of Rs.9,999/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine) only. The death certificate vide Ext.2 is remaining unrebutted in the evidence on record. As per the said death certificate, the insured died on 20-11-2010. The cause of death is not brought before this District Forum, so it is presumed that he died normally.
- Now question as whether the insured furnished wrong information regarding his occupation and income which misleaded the insurance company to accept the proposal for insurance. The O.P with the help of deposition of witness and in support of documents tried to establish the fact that the insured furnished wrong information.
- In view of evidence of D.W, we have gone through the proposal vide Ext. A. As per the Ext. A annual income of the insured is written Rs.1,50,000/- and his occupation was mentioned as business. But the D.W stated that on investigation, the investigator collected income certificated vide Ext.D and stated that as per Ext.D annual income of the insured was Rs.25,000/-. But on careful perusal of the Ext.D it is revealed that the said income certificate was not for the income of the insured but for the complainant. For which the Ext.D is irrelevant to determine income of the deceased. However, the witness exhibited BPL Ration Card of the insured and the Ld. Advocate of the O.P tried to convince that the person who obtained a BPL Card cannot earn Rs.1,50,000/- annually. So, as per him, the O.P has establish the fact that the insured furnished wrong information regarding annual income. Moreover, the O.P tried to convince this Forum that the insured was not a businessman but a cultivator. The fact is not established convincingly for want of reliable evidence.
- Nevertheless, from evidence regarding issuing of BPL Ration Card in the name of the insured and fact of construction of house under scheme of Indira Avas Yojna, the O.P tried to establish the fact that the deceased insured furnished wrong information about his financial capacity and for which misleaded the insurance company to accept the proposal. But from the evidence on record, we do not find any plea of the O.P-insurer that if the annual income of the insured was informed correctly as Rs.25,000 or Rs.30,000, the insurance company would not issue the insurance policy with sum assured of Rs.3,75,000/- rather it was issued for much less amount or in other word would reject the proposal on the ground that a BPL Card holder is disqualified for purchasing of Insurance Policy of any amount.
- Hence, in this case in view of evidence on record and hearing of the Ld. Advocate of the parties as well as our observation, we are of opinion that when insurance policy proposal was accepted without supporting of any authentic income certificate the claim cannot be repudiated on the ground that the information regarding annual income wrongly furnished in as much as the information submitted without suppoting of affidavit on oath.
- Thus, we find disservice against the O.P for repudiation of the Claimant. Hence, they are both jointly and severally liable to pay sum assured to the nominee of the insured with cost of the proceeding of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. Of course, the Complainant being nominee may receive the awarded amount with upto date interest and cost the proceeding from O.Ps but liable to distribute the said amount equally to all legal heir of the deceased insured. If he do not distribute the said amount to the legal heirs, the aggrieved legal heir may realize his share as per procedure established by law.
- Thus, O.Ps are directed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.3,75,000 + 1,000 = 3,76,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh seventy six thousand) only within 45 days from today. In default interest @ 10% P.A. to be charged on awarded amount till realization of full.
- With the above, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of this judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 11th day of August, 2017. | |
