Haryana

StateCommission

CC/67/2014

Sunil Khasa - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

15 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.67 of 2014

                                                       Date of Institution: 09.07.2014                  Date of Decision: 15.03.2017

 

Sunil Khasa S/o Late Sh.Fateh Singh, r/o H.No.872, Ward No.1, Baroda Nagar, Opposite Shiv Mandir, Gohana, District Sonepat. (policy No.15309383).

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 11^th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Appolo Mills Compound, NM Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Maharashtra, Mumbai-400011 through its Chief Executing officer.

2.      The Branch Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, Panipat-042, GT Road, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Gopi Agencies, R11, 12, 13, Near Ludhiana Shawl Market, Opposite Hotel My India, Panipat-132103.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

 

For the parties:  Mr.N.S.Panwar, Advocate for the complainant.

                             Mr. S.C.thatai, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

Complainant has asked for payment of Rs.31,38,107/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum besides compensation to the tune of Rs.Two lacs for mental harassment etc. and Rs.One lac for litigation expenses.

          It is alleged that his father Fateh Singh purchased  HDFC Children’s Double Benefit Plan policy bearing No.15309383 for him from opposite party  (O.P.) No.2 for sum assured of Rs.31,38,107/-.  On 19.07.2012 premium of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid vide cheque No.740353 dated 19.07.2012 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd from account No.016801000521.  He died on 22.10.2012 leaving behind following legal heirs:-

                   “1.     Jogindri (widow),

                   2.      Nirmala (daughter)

                   3.      Sunil Khasa (Son)

                   4.      Narender Singh (son) died leaving behind Savita (widow).

                   5.      Parul (daughter)

6.       Parminder (minor son)”

As being nominee/beneficiary, they submitted the claim with O.Ps., but, the same was repudiated vide letter dated 13.08.2013 on the ground that Deceased Life Assured (DLA) did not disclose correct age.

2.      In reply it is alleged  by O.Ps. that Fateh Singh (since deceased) submitted proposal form dated 19.07.2012 and the same was accepted on the basis of information provided by him while obtaining policy Nos.15309383.  While obtaining policy No.15309383 it was alleged by him that proof of identity  and residence was already submitted and same fact was mentioned in the column of age.  Regarding his proof of age and residence he submitted ration card and affidavit. After death of Fateh Singh when matter was got investigated on the basis of claim submitted by complainant it was found that he was approximately 78-80 years old at that time. When investigator went to his house for the purpose of investigation Sunil Khasa S/o Fateh Singh, who is nominee in two other policies, put revolver on the table just to scare him and caused obstruction in the proper investigation.  It was found that when Fateh Singh opened account he submitted pan card as proof of age wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 10.01.1925.  He obtained three policies within a very short span for heavy amount as detailed below:-

          “Sr.No.       Policy Nos.                   Rs.                       Date

          “1.     Policy No.  15309383 Rs.31,38,107/-   21.07.2012

          2.      Policy No.  15313286 Rs.31,38,107/-   21.07.2012

          3.      Policy No. 15454333  Rs.43,94,197/-   03.10.2012

                     Total                            Rs.1,06,70,411/-

 Had he submitted correct date of birth policy might not have been issued. As he concealed true fact, so claim was rightly repudiated.

3.      Both the parties have led evidence. Arguments heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that in proof of age DLA produced copy of ration card Ex.P-3 dated 07.04.2006, wherein he was shown as 42 years old and affidavit  Ex.R-4 wherein he alleged that his date of birth was 19.05.1963.  At the time of insurance DLA was examined by doctor and he must have seen whether there is any difference in the age or not.  O.Ps. have not produced any record regarding his age.  As per voter list Ex.R-12 it cannot be presumed that he was 78 years old in the year 2011 because voter list is no proof of age. Copy of ration card is on higher pedestal and cannot be ignored. So O.Ps. wrongly repudiated his claim.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Anand Kumar Kejariwal Vs. LIC of India & Anr. 2011 (2) C.P.C. 432, opinion of Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur in LIC of India Vs. Smt. Mooli Devi 1995 (2) C.P.C. 683 and Uttranchat State Commission, Dehradun in LIC of India Vs. Rajender Singh  2005 (1) C.P.J. 519.

5.      This argument is of no avail. If we go through the evidence available on the file, it will be clear that DLA was aware about age and was expecting his death at any moment and that is why purchased three polices within a span of four months for such a huge amount, as mentioned above.  What necessity has arisen to purchase three policies within such a short span is no-where explained. Complainant has miserably failed to show that age mentioned in ration card was correct. When more additions were made therein is also not explained, whereas according to voter list Ex.R-12 his age was 78 years. In independent capacity voter list may not be having much weightage but when it is corroborated by other evidence it cannot be ignored. When Sunil Khasa entered witness box it was stated by him that Ex.R-12 is voter list of Gohana and was bearing photo of his father. He no-where stated that the said voter list was altogether wrong. So it cannot be alleged that date of birth was wrong. When Sunil Khasa entered the witness box it was stated by him that he was not aware whether his father was having  account in ICICI bank or not. Whether premium of policy was paid by his father through cheque or not. Whereas it is alleged in complaint that DLA paid premium through cash from this account. When his father opened account in ICICI Bank he identified him which is clear from the perusal of Ex.R-14.  It was also stated by him that he was not aware whether his father told less age or not when the proposal form Ex.P-1/Ex/R-6 was submitted.  As per Ex.R-6 premium was paid through cheque of ICICI Bank.  This statement clearly shows that complainant is trying  to get compensation one way or the other. It shows that DLA did not disclose true age and concealed material fact while obtaining insurance policy and O.Ps. rightly repudiated his claim. These views are fortified by opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in  Bharti & Ors. Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd. 2014 (1) C.P.C. 602, LIC of India Vs. Yogendra Prasad Singh 2009 (4) CLT 559 and Lakbhir Kaur & Ors. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. 2014 (76) R.C.R. (Civil) 370 (case law cited by the counsel for the O.Ps.).  It is well settled law that  “utmost good faith” is a principle of fair dealing which does not come to an end when the contract has been made” and quoted a distinguished judge of an earlier generation as saying that the obligation of good faith rests on the insured “throughout the currency of the policy.  The complainant cannot derive any benefit from cited case laws because they are based on different footings.  In Anand Kumar Kejariwal case (supra)  there was difference of age of only 2-3 years, whereas in the present case it is more than 38 years. In this complaint the premium was paid by the complainant from his account and not from the account of DLA.  If DLA was not having sufficient amount in his account then why the payment was not made from his account is no-where mentioned.  So these arguments are of no avail.  O.Ps. rightly repudiated the claim. The complaint has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

March 15th, 2017

Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.