Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 310.
Instituted on : 19.05.2017.
Decided on : 30.01.2019.
- Krishan Kumar s/o Ramesh r/o House No.1441. Ward No.3, Ambedkar Nagar, Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
- Ramesh s/o Shri Khasha Ram r/o House No.1441, Ward No.3, Ambedkar Nagar, Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
(Legal heirs of Angoori Devi).
………..Complainants.
Vs.
- HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Ashoka Building, Opp. Myna Tourist Complex, Delhi-Rohtak Road, Rohtak, through its Branch Manager.
- HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered office:11th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Appolo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.L.Kismissia, Advocate for the complainants.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that mother of complainant no.1 Smt. Angoori Devi (now deceased) had purchased a HDFC LIFE Insurance Policy No.18123810-HDFC SL Pro growth Plus in her name from the respondents for a sum of Rs.280009/- through HDFC Bank on dated 10.02.2016. That on 19.12.2016 the life assured had died natural death and after her death, complainant applied for claim under the policy and submitted all the required documents with the opposite parties. That complainant visited to the office of the opposite parties several times and requested to pay the claim amount but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of policy amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.1 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nol.1 and opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.07.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that it is admitted to the extent that the deceased life assured had purchased a life insurance policy bearing no.18123810 dated 11.02.2016 but it is pertinent to mention here that the said policy was an act of fraud as the deceased has submitted the forged & fabricated occupation & income proof for obtaining the insurance policy. That the death claim has been repudiated by the answering opposite party vide letter dated 03.03.2017 on the ground that occupation and income details disclosed in the application/proposal form dated 05.01.2016 are found to false and the amount of Rs.39010.53/- the premium paid by the life insured was also credited in the saving account number of the complainant ending with xxxx8407 by the answering opposite party. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.C1, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.04.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of OP No.2 be read in evidence and has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 26.11.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party No.2 vide its letter Ex.R2 on the ground that: “From investigations it was established that the occupation and income details disclosed in the application dated January 05, 2016 were found to be false. Had this information been provided to the company at the time of applying for the insurance policy the company would have declined the application”. In this regard, it is observed that the proposal form was submitted by the life assured on 05.01.2016 and the policy was issued by the respondent officials after due verification on dated 10.02.2016 i.e. after a gap of one month 5 days and no misrepresentation was found at that time. Now the respondent officials are taking the baseless plea that there is misrepresentation of facts regarding the occupation and income of the life assured. Moreover neither any investigation report nor any document e.g. proof of income or occupation has been placed on file by the opposite parties to prove that the income details and occupation disclosed in the proposal form were false. Even no affidavit of the opposite parties or proposal form has been placed on record by the opposite parties. Hence in the absence of any proposal form, investigation report or any other document regarding the occupation and income of the life assured, it is not established that there was misrepresentation on the part of life assured. Hence the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on flimsy grounds. As such complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per policy amounting to Rs.280000/-. As per statement made by ld. counsel for the complainant an amount of Rs.39010.53/- has already been received by the complainant in March, 2017. As such the complainants are entitled for the remaining claim amount of Rs.240990/-(rounded off to nearest ten rupees) i.e. (Rs.280000/- less Rs.39011/-).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.1 & 2 shall pay the amount of Rs.240990/-(Rupees two lac forty thousand nine hundred and ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.05.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainants in equal share within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.01.2019.
......................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
