| Final Order / Judgement | OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI C.C.21/2008 Present:- 1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President 2) Sri Upendra Nath Deka - Member Md. Salimuddin Ahmed. - Complainant S/O Late Seken Ali, Village & P.O.Jamtola, P.O.Rangia, District- Kamrup (Assam) -vs- 1) Guwahati Divisional Office, - Opp.parties Life Insurance Corporation of India. Fancy Bazar,Guwahati Appearance- Learned advocate Mr. Momin Sultan Ali for the complainant. Learned advocate Mr. Abinash Kundu for Opp.Parties Date of argument - 29.4.16 Date of judgment- 13.5.16 JUDGMENT This is a proceeding u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986. - The complaint filed by Md. Salimuddin Ahmed S/O Lt. Seben Ali was admitted on 1.3.08 . Notices was issued to opp.party who, after receiving the notice contested the case and filed written statement. The complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit, and the affidavit of one Md.Abdul Hamid who were also cross-examined by the counsel of the opp.party. The opp.party side filed affidavit of Sri Krishna Kakati in support of their case and he was also cross examined by the counsel of the complainant. Thereafter, both side’s Ld counsels filed their respective written argument. Finally, on 29.4.16, we have heard the oral argument of Ld advocate Md.Momin Sultan Ali for the complainant and of Ld advocate Mr.Abinash Kundu for the opp.party and today, we deliver the judgment which is as below.
- The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant’s father Late Seken Ali opened one insurance policy with Life Insurance Corporation Limited (Division Office,Guwahati) on 16.6.2005 vide policy No. 483606672 for sum assured of Rs.55,000/- and the policy was issued to him after all the requirements thoroughly adhered to and after examining him by the doctor of the opp.party who opined that he was a man of 55 years age and the premium was Rs.999/-. While the premium of the policy being continued he was admitted in Civil Hospital in Rangia due to tremendous chest pain where necessary treatment was provided to him but his health condition was deteriorating and the doctor advised for shifting to G.M.C.H. and first he was taken to his residence and while a taxi was brought to take him to G.M.C.H., he expired at his home before arriving of the taxi. Thereafter the complainant, being the son/nominee of the insured, lodged the claim with the opp.party , but the claim was repudiated by the opp. party on the ground that the insured was more than 95 years of age at the time of opening of the policy. The ground of repudiation is illegal and malafide , one having the school certificate of the insured and other certificates including the opp.party empanelled doctor’s certificate clearly shows that the insured was a man of 55 years at the time of opening of the policy. So, they pray for issuing direction to opp.party to pay the assured amount as well as Rs.55,000/- as compensation for putting the complainant in mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as cost of the proceeding with interest at @20% .
- The gist of the pleading of the opp.party is that a proposal for policy in the name of Seken was made on 16.6.05 with sum assured Rs.55,000/- and the policy No.483606672 dt. 22.6.05 was issued to him and at the time of proposal, they found the documents filed by the insured were satisfactory but it is not true that the empanelled doctors after examining him found him as a person of 55 years of age, but it is true that the proposal was accepted basing on the documents filed by him. The insured paid only one premium (Rs.999/-). The concerned authority repudiated claim after doing due investigation and collection of evidence, whereby the authority (ABM, Rangia Branch of LICI) found that the insured was a man of 95 years. The voter list of 2005-2007 submitted by the complainant also shows that the insured’s age was 95 years. The age proof certificate issued from school submitted by the insured at the time of proposal of the policy showed that he was of 55 years age, but while H.G.A.of Rangia branch investigated about the age of the insured, he found that the head master of Kachari Solmari Primary School, Sri Abdul Hamid stated that he had never issued any age certificate to the insured and that certificate is a forged certificate wherein the signature of the issuing authority was forged, as well as the village Gaon Burah in his certificate, collected by them, states that he knew the insured and the insured’s age was 65 years. The insured grossly suppressed his age and furnished wrong information at the time of proposal and the very school certificate filed was forged one and signature thereover was a forged signature and he had filed wrong information about his age with an intention to cheat the opp.party though he was beyond insurable age and hence the authority rightly repudiated the claim and hence, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the very complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- We have perused the pleading as well as evidence of the parties and found that Rangia Branch of LICI (opp.party) had on 16.5.2005 issued the policy No. 483606672 to Late Seken Ali, the father of the complainant for assured sum of Rs. 55,000/- with premium of Rs.999/- yearly and after payment of one premium he died on 19.9.2005 at his home due to heart pain while his relative was preparing to take him to G.M.C.H. from Rangia Civil Hospital for better treatment. It is also both sides’ admitted fact that the complainant is the son/nominee of the insured and being son/nominee of the insured, he filed the claim before the opp.party (Divisional Office,L.I.C.I.Guwahati) but the latter did an investigation about the age of the deceased insured and their investigator filed report to them opining that the insured was a man of 95 years at the time of issuance of the policy. As per the version of the opp.party, it is seen that they repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time of proposal of the policy, the insured had suppressed the fact of his real age and submitted a forged school certificate and thereby showed that he was a man of 55 years though he was a man of 95 years that reveals from the investigation done by their investigator.
- Now, moot question is whether the insured was a man of 95 years at the time of the proposal of the policy. The complainant’s plea is that the empanelled doctor , after checking him, found that he was a man of 55 years only and that the school certificate filed by him shows that he was of 55 years, while the plea of the opp.party is that the school certificate filed is a forged document, and the empanelled doctor has not opined that the insurer was a man of 55 years. The opp.party side, further, states that the voter list of 2005-2007, the document submitted by complainant, shows that he was a man of 95 years and the Gaonburah certificate collected by their investigator shows that he was of 65 years at the time of proposal of the policy.
The complainant sides’ first plea is that at the time of proposal of the policy,the empanelled doctor of the opp.party found the insured in good health and he had been 55 years at that time, and in the cross examination, D.W.1- Sri Krishna Kakati admits that for age proof and health check up , the empanelled doctor is required for confidential report and in making the policy and in acceptance of the policy, the confidential report of empanelled doctor was prepared and it released that the age is based on school certificate as 55 years. From this admission, it clearly shows that at the time of proposal of the policy, the opp.party sides’ empanelled doctor enquired about the health and age of the insured and he found that the insured was in good health and he was a man of 55 years. Secondly, the complainant side states that from the school certificate issued by the head master of Kachari Solmari Primary School, it is clear that the insured was a man of 55 years at the time of proposal. To prove that certificate, they exhibited the certificates as Exhibit 4 & 5 and to authenticate it, they examined the vary head master as witness. It is found that the said headmaster, Abdul Halim (P.W.2) states that while he was working as headmaster of Kachari Solmari Primary School, he , on 1.5.2000 issued certificate to the insured as he was a student of that school and left the school after completing education on 31.12.1960 and he issued the certificate (Ex-4) after perusing the school record. The opp.party side’s plea is that although P.W.2 issued Ext.4 & 5, he himself gave a certificate to their investigator that Ext.4 was not issued from Kachari Solmari Primary School; that is a forged document and the signature therein is not his signature. But the opp.party side has not put any question to P.W.2 (the author of Ext. 4) in connection with the said alleged fact, nor showed him that certificate (Ex E) even after getting chance to do so. Thus, it is clear that op.party side intentionally avoided to put question to P.W.2 on that fact and did not call the author of Ex.E to authenticate that document, and they also avoided to examine their investigator as witness to prove that plea . This conduct of the opp.parties proves that Abdul Halim (P.W.2), the Head Master of Kachari Solmari Primary School had never issued Ext E. So, it shall be presumed that Ex E is itself a forged document. Thus, we hold that Abdul Halim, the Head Master of Kachari Solmari Primary School (P.W. 2) never certified that Ext.4 is a forged document , nor he said that he had never issued Ext.4 to the insured. Thus, it is clearly established that Ext.4 & 5 are genuine documents which were issued by P.W.2 (Abdul Hamid), the Head Master of Kachari Solmari Primary School. Thus, it is established that Ex 4 is the clear proof of age of the insured, and P.W.2 Abdul Hamid is the real person not proxy one. The opp.party side further states that in the voter list of 2005-2007 (Ex c), it is seen that the insured was 95 years old. It is settled law that voter list can not be a proof of age of the voters. Therefore, Ex C can not be accepted as proof of age of the insured. In view of above findings we reject the pleas of the opp.party side. Hence, after accepting the plea of the complainant side we hold that the insured Seken Ali was a man of 55 years at the time of proposal and issuance of policy and he had never misrepresented about his age at the time of proposal of the policy. Therefore, we also hold the judgments referred by Ld advocate Mr.Kundu i.e. (2006) 7 SCC 655,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Munimahesh Patel; Vishamber Sunderdas Badlani and others vs.Indian Bank and others, 1 (2008) CPJ 76 (NC) ; Sayed Md Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal vs. Badagara Jamayath Palli Dharas Committee and others (AIR 2004 S.C. 4365); AIR 2011 SC 234; AIR 1968 S.C. 1413 as well as LICI vs. Smti Vinod Devi (Revision Petition NO.2313/2008, National Commission) cannot be taken up as support to the plea of the opp.party side. We also found that the dispute in hand does not involve any complicated question which warrants to refer the parties to approach the civil court. - We have found from evidence that the opp.party repudiated the claim filed by the complainant, who is the son and nominee of the insured Lt. Saken Ali, only on the ground that the insured had hidden the real fact of his age at the time of proposal of the policy and he misrepresented his age as 55 where as he was man of 95 years at that time. Now, it is found to have been established that the insured was a man of 55 years only at the time of proposal and issuance of the policy and the insured had never mis-represented his age. Secondly, it is also found that at the time of issuance of the policy, the insured was not suffering from any sort of diseases and he died on heart attack while he was under treatment. Thus; it is crystal clear that the opp.party side repudiated the claim filed the complainant without any just cause. So, we hold that by that act, the opp.party committeddeficiency of service towards the complainant. By illegally repudiating the claim, they also harassed the complainant side for which they are to pay compensation to him along withthe cost of the proceeding.
- The claim is a death claim relief for the death of the insured Saken Ali and the sum assured is Rs.55,000/- and the insured died on 19.9.2005. Therefore, the opp.party is liable to pay the assured amount of Rs.55,000/-to the complainant, as the insured died on 19.9.2005, therefore, the opp.party is liable to pay the assured amount of Rs.55,000/- to complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint (1.3.2008) and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for putting the complainant in mental agony and causing harassment to him as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
- Because of what has been discussed as above, the complaint is allowed on contest and the opp.party, LICI, Guwahati Divisional Office, is directed to pay the assured amount of Rs.55,000/-(Rupees fifty five thousand )only to the complainant, Md. Salimuddin Ahmed with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint (1.3.2008) and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding within two months , in default of which, other two amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 13th May, 2016. Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties. (Md.S.Hussain) President DCF,Kamrup (Mr.U.N.Deka) Member DCF,Kamrup | |
