BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 66 of 2015
Date of Institution: 27.3.2015
Date of Decision : 20.2.2017
Ram Niwas son of Inder Singh, resident of H. No.239, Kharati Khera, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., 11th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mils Compound, NM Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400011.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Ashish Goel, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that his father purchased two policies i.e. policy No.15835163 for Rs.4,94,627/- and policy No.16006552 for Rs.4,00,003/- by making payment of premium to the opposite parties and got his life assured with ops. The complainant was made nominee in both the policies and as per terms and conditions of both the policies, the nominee was entitled to get the insured amount on the death of insured during policy period. The insured died on 10.8.2013 due to heart attack and complainant being nominee intimated the ops regarding death of insured and also lodged claim with the ops under both the policies and also submitted all the documents alongwith original policies to the ops. It is further averred that the officials of ops assured the complainant to disburse the claim amount of Rs.8,94,630/- under both the policies within short period. But the complainant did not receive any claim amount till date. The complainant made inquiry on its own and came to know that both the claims of complainant have been repudiated by ops though he has not received any repudiation letter from ops. The claims of complainant under both policies have been repudiated wrongly and without any reason by ops and complainant has suffered mental and physical harassment at the hands of ops for which he is entitled to amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides litigation expenses alongwith claim amount. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement resisting the complainant on the ground that on the date of applying for policy in question, the father of complainant was no more in the world and complainant by playing fraud with the ops’ company had got managed to procure the policies and the ops considering the proposal submitted online by late Inder Singh had got issued the policy. As per Indian Contract Act and contract based upon fraud, coercion, misrepresentation carries no legal sanctity and that so in the present case. It is further submitted that on the date of applying for policies, no concluded contract came into existence as the life assured much prior to the same had passed away. It is submitted that on 18.2.2013 and 31.3.2013 the answering ops were in receipt of duly filled online proposal form showing the same to be submitted by the father of complainant. The answering ops considering the information contained in the proposal form true and believing the same submitted by the father of complainant had processed the case for issuance of the policy and on the basis of proposal form, the policy bearing No.15835163 on semi annual mode of Rs.12,126/- was issued on 18.2.2013 for sum assured of Rs.4,94,627/- and another policy bearing No.16006552 for sum assured of Rs.400003/- was issued on 1.4.2013. In the month of June, 2014, the answering ops were in receipt of death claim intimation from complainant and upon perusal of same, it has been revealed that life assured shown to be passed away within a short span of six months i.e. on 10.8.2013. Being an early claim, the ops had processed the case for conducting necessary investigation and it has been revealed to the ops that father of complainant passed away on 10.2.2013 i.e. much prior to the applying for the policies and the proposal applied after the death of life assured upon which the policies stand issued is the result of fraud so playing by complainant with the ops with a view to cause undue loss. The claim put forth by complainant stands repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 31.1.2014. The falsity of the version of complainant can barely be evident from the fact that complainant by impersonating some other person had got procured the policy showing the same to be applied by the life assured Inder Singh and at the time of applying for both the policies, the complainant even had submitted wrong particulars qua the address, date of birth of life assured, date of birth of himself and all this has been done by complainant with a view to hide the fraud. It is further submitted that out of above two policies, one policy stands purchased and applied from Sirsa having a different address and having a different date of birth of LA and other policy stands purchased and applied from Fatehabad having a different address and different date of birth of LA. It is further submitted that the forgery of complainant came into limelight during the course of investigation and even the mother of complainant and several other members of the locality had reduced their statements in writing under their own signature wherein they had stated that late Inder Singh had passed away on 10.2.2013 and not on 10.8.2013. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. By way of evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of death claim form Ex.C2, policy schedule of policy number 15835163 Ex.C3, policy schedule of policy No.16006552 Ex.C4, death certificate Ex.C5. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna, Deputy Legal Manager Ex.RW1/A and copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R17.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. It is the specific stand of the opposite parties that the forgery of the complainant came into limelight during the course of investigation and even the mother of the complainant and several other members of the locality had reduced their statement in writing under their own signatures wherein they had stated that late Inder Singh had passed away on 10.2.2013 and not on 10.8.2013 i.e. much prior to taking of insurance policies in question from the opposite parties. To substantiate their plea, the opposite parties have placed on file investigation report Ex.R3 and copy of certificate of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Khairati Khera dated 2.7.2014 wherein it is certified that Inder Singh died on 10.2.2013. The ops have also placed on file certificate of Aanganwari worker in this regard (though not exhibited). Even there is copy of statement allegedly made by Smt. Bateri wife of Inder Singh placed on file by ops in which it is mentioned that her husband Inder Singh expired on 10.2.2013. After the specific stand of the opposite parties taken in the written statement that death of Inder Singh actually took place on 10.2.2013 and not on 10.8.2013 i.e. much prior to the applying for the policies in question, the complainant has not refuted the said stand of the opposite parties by leading cogent and reliable evidence. The complainant has not bothered to produce affidavit of his mother or other persons whose statements have been allegedly recorded by ops to prove that they did not make any statement before the Investigator and their above statements/ certificates are not correct and do not bear their signatures. Even the affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 is almost repetition of the contents of the complaint in which he has not even denied the above allegations of the opposite parties. The complainant was required to prove by leading reliable and cogent evidence that they did not commit any type of fraud upon ops and death of his father actually took place on 10.8.2013 and not on 10.2.2013 but he has failed to do so. Further more, in the policy number 15835163 dated 18.2.2013, the date of birth of Inder Singh is mentioned as 5th October 1967 and he is shown to be the resident of H. No.239b Ward No.10, Mohalla Dogran, Sirsa whereas in the another policy No.16006552 dated 1.4.2013, the date of birth of said Inder Singh is mentioned as 3rd April 1960 and he is shown to be the resent of House No.239, Ward No.10, VPO Kharati Khera, Tehsil Fatehabad, Distt. Fatehabad and therefore, mentioning of different date of birth and addresses in both the policies also creates some suspicion behind it.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that opposite parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 31.1.2014 and same does not call for our interference. The authority of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as LIC of India Vs. Renuka Devi, Revision Petition No.996 of 2009 decided on 9.3.2016 cited by learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable in the present case because in the present case the complainant has not proved that above alleged statements/ certificate obtained by Investigator are false and not correct. Similarly, the law laid down by Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Kulwinder Kaur vs. LIC, 2007 (1) CLT 303 is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:20.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
