Punjab

Sangrur

CC/326/2016

Surjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramandeep Singh Marahar

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                       

                                                        Complaint no. 326                                                                                                

                                                   Instituted on:   16.03.2016                                                                              

                                                    Decided on:    19.10.2016

 

Surjit Kaur wife of Surjit Singh resident of Babian Di Dhani, Village Kalian, Tehsil  Lehra, District Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

1.         HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: 1st Floor, Adjoining Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager:

 

2.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office: Lodha Excelus, 13th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, N M Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai through its Managing Director.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Ramandeep Singh, Adv.                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES         :     Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.                        

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

     

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Surjit Kaur, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that her husband Surjit Singh got himself insured from OPs for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-  on 17.10.2012 and paid premium of Rs.25000/- .  Unfortunately on 01.04.2014  the husband of the complainant died due to natural death after which claim was lodged and all the relevant documents were submitted.  The OPs wrongly  and illegally repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant on false ground of age dispute of deceased vide their letter dated 24.09.2015. The original documents i.e. ration card and voter card are still in the custody of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to release the claim amount of Rs.1,75,000/-  along with interest @18% per annum from the date  of death till realization,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs,  legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and suppression of material facts have been taken up.  On merits, it is admitted that the husband of the complainant was insured with OPs.  It is submitted that  the policy was issued to Surjit Singh on the basis of his application dated 18.10.2012 for purchase of  HDFC SL Pro Growth Super II policy.  During upon investigation of claim of  complainant it was established  that his age was 68 years at the time of his death in this way he supplied wrong information to the company.  Moreover the husband of the complainant  did not deposit premium  for the 2nd year.  At the time of death of complainant 's husband the policy was in lapsed mode.  It is denied that the original documents i.e.  ration card voter card are still in the custody of answering respondent. Thus, the claim of the complainant  was rightly repudiated.

3.             In his evidence, the complainant  has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, Ops have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 and  Ex.OP-2 and closed evidence.

 

 

4.             After hearing the arguments  of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record we find that in the present complaint the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of obtaining  the policy the complainant has not mentioned  the correct age. So, the main point of controversy in this complaint is whether the age mentioned in the policy is correct or not?

5.             The OPs have placed on record copy of the policy which is Ex.OP-2 and on the perusal of the document we find that  in the proposal form which is a part of the policy the date of birth has been mentioned  as 04/04/1956  but there is  no document alongwith the policy in confirmation of the date of birth. If the age of the policy holder was such a vital point that the claim could be repudiated then the OPs should  have obtained the proof of date of birth  and if it was so important  then they should  have not issued the policy. Now, the OPs are taking benefit of their own wrong by submitting that the age of the policy holder is wrong as per their investigation. Moreover from the perusal of the record we do not find any investigation report nor there is any affidavit of the person who has done the investigation. It seems that the OPs are interested only in collecting  premium and repudiating the claim on flimsy grounds.

6.             Further, on the perusal of the proposal form attached with the policy document Ex.OP-2, we find that the policy holder has signed in Punjabi and the proposal form has been filled in English. So, at the time of issuing the policy the OPs should have verified the contents of the proposal form from the documents. The Ops could have very well demanded the ration card, voter identity card or any other document in confirmation of the contents of the proposal form instead of simply mentioning that it is         based on the affidavit  and ration card  but had the OPs obtained the ration card then they must have attached the same with the proposal form  and if the OPs have seen and obtained  the ration card then now they cannot repudiate  the claim on the ground of age. However, the OPs have not placed on record  as to why the wrong age is basis of repudiation of the claim.  The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court  in case tilted as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008 (3) R.C.R. 9 ( civil) 111 has held that the insurance companies  are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The Insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims.

7.             So, in the light of above discussion, we find that Ops are deficient in service and accordingly we allow the complaint and direct them to release the rightful claim of the complainant i.e. Rs.1,75,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10000/- being compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                         

                        Announced

                        October 19, 2016

 

 

         ( Sarita Garg)     ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                             Member              Member                        President

 

 

 

BBS/-