BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.17 of 2015.
Date of Instt.: 04.02.2015.
Date of Order: 18.04.2017.
Ajmer Singh son of Sube Singh resident of & Post Office Sithala Majra Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited 11th, 12th & 13th Floor Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compoumd, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400011
Registered Office: Lodha Excelus, 13th Floor Apollo Mills Compound N.M.Joshi, Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400011 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
..Opposite party.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi,Member. Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member
Present: Sh. Raj Kumar Panwar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Yogesh Gupta, counsel for OPs.
ORDER
Sh.Ajmer Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter to be referred as OP) with the averments that his father Sube Singh had got himself insured with OP vide policy No.16217248 having for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and he had been appointed as nominee and at the time of insurance, the agent of the OP had himself filled up the information regarding various particulars of the life assured and nothing material was kept concealed at that time. It has been further averred that as per school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster Government high School Dhani Dulat the date of birth of life assured-Sube Singh was 15.02.1959. On 20.09.2013 life insured-Sube Singh died and after his death the complainant had submitted all the requisite documents with the OP and also completed all the formalities. It has been further averred that at the time of submission of the claim the Op had also taken from the complainant original insurance policy and receipts regarding the payment of premium but despite that the OP has not released all the benefits of the insurance and repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 19.06.2014 on false and flimsy ground as the deceased life assured had concealed the actual date of birth. The complainant requested the OP to release the insurance benefits but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OP amount to deficiency in service on its part. The complainant has also claimed compensation on account of mental agony, harassment. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit of Dr.Deepak Dehan as Ex.C1, affidavits of Sh.Rohash son of Krishn Lal, Sh.Hansaj son of Surja Ram, Sh.Om Parkash son of Hazari Singh and Smt.Kunti Devi as Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 respectively and documents Ex.C2, Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing reply to the complaint. In the reply several preliminary objections such as cause of action and maintainability etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that contract of life insurance is Uberrama Fides i.e. principle of utmost good faith, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of deceased life assured to disclose all the material facts pertaining to his age, health and other history as per his/her knowledge but in the present case the life assured had not given true facts in the proposal form and had concealed the material facts with deliberate intention to commit fraud, therefore, violation on the part of life assured makes the contract void and ab-initio. It has been further submitted that a policy No.16217248 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was issued to the life assured on dated 12.08.2013 after filing of proposal form supported with ID card, showing his age as 52 years, by the complainant but when the matter was investigated thoroughly then the age of life assured was found as 61 years at the time of applying for a policy with the insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the repudiation duly communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 19.06.2014 has been made as per terms and conditions of the policy. It has been further submitted that the deceased life assured was member of BPL category but in the proposal form he had shown his earning to the tune of Rs.3 lacs which shows that the policy in question was taken for unlawful financial gain. It has been further submitted that the deceased life assured had passed away on dated 11.08.2013 and the policy in question was commenced from 12.08.2013, meaning thereby that at the time of death of the life assured no contract was in existence but in the fake death certificate the date of death of the life assured has been shown as 20.09.2013. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna as Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R8, Annexure R8/A, Annexure R9 and Annexure R1/A.
4. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard at length and case file has been perused carefully.
5. In the present case the claim for grant of compensation to the complainant has been repudiated by the Ops on the ground that the DLA concealed his correct age while filing up the proposal form and made a false statement in the proposal form that he was about 52 years old whereas as per voter list for the year 2014 his age has been mentioned as 61 years. As such, in the proposal form the DLA mentioned his age 9 years less than the actual age. Thus, the insurance company was led to issue the insurance on the basis of a false declaration made by the DLA at the time of filing proposal which renders the contract under the policy as void. We are of the considered view that the above said contention of the OPs is not tenable. To establish that the DLA was 61 years at the time of filing the proposal, the OPs have relied upon the voter list of the year 2014 wherein the age of the DLA has been mentioned as 61 years. On the other hand, the complainant has relied upon the School Leaving Certificate (Annexure-3) of DLA issued by the Government High School Dhani Dulat wherein the date of birth of DLA has been mentioned as 12.02.1959. As per this School Leaving Certificate the DLA was about 54 years old at the time of filing the proposal form and not 61 years as mentioned in the voter card. It is also pertinent to mention here that Headmaster of the Government High School Dulat appeared in the court as witness on 21.11.2016 along with the original record and submitted that Annexure C-3 has been issued by his school and he has brought the original copy of the same in the court.
6. It is a settled proposition of law that regarding the proof of age authenticity of School Leaving Certificate is better than the voter card. Voter card is not a conclusive proof of age and cannot be given weight-age over School Leaving Certificate. In the proposal form the DLA declared his age 52 years and as per Annexure C-3 he was about 54 years at the time of filing proposal form. We are of the considered view that difference of only two years in the age is not so material which could have led the OPs to change the decision for issuance of policy to the DLA. Age difference of two years in the present case is not such a material fact on the basis of which the claim can be repudiated.
7. A perusal of the repudiation letter dated 19.06.2014 transpires that the claim of the complainant was repudiated only on the ground that the DLA made a false declaration regarding his age. However, in the reply filed by the OPs it has also been averred that the DLA had died on 11.08.2013 whereas the policy in question was issued on 12.08.2013. Therefore, on the date of death of DLA no concluded contract came into existence. In support of the contention that the DLA died on 11.08.2013 the OPs relied upon the statement made by Rohtash, Hans Raj and Om Parkash and Devi Lal all residents of village Sinthala before the surveyor. OPs have also relied upon the statement made by the Anganwadi worker before the surveyor that the DLA died on 11.08.2013. However, the above named persons of village Sinthala submitted affidavit before this Forum that the DLA had died on 20.09.2013 and all the persons further stated that they never made any statement before the surveyor that the DLA had died on 11.08.2013. Affidavit of the Anganwadi worker who made a statement before surveyor has not been filed by the Ops nor the relevant register of Anganwadi was produced by the OPs. Therefore, the said contention of the OPs is not tenable. On the other hand, the complainant examined Dr.Deepak Duhan of Duhan Nursing Home, Barwala to prove that the DLA died on 20.09.2013 at Duhan Nursing Home, Barwala. Dr.Duhan filed an affidavit Ex.C-1 wherein he has stated that the DLA had died on 20.09.2013 in his hospital at Barwala. In support of the above statement Dr.Duhan tendered copy of the register of hospital Ex.C2. The complainant has also produced death certificate of DLA issued by Municipal Committee, Barwala. A perusal of the same reveals that the DLA died on 20.09.2013.
8. It is worthwhile to mention here that the insurance company is not supposed to get only premium but it also liable to act fairly without taking the benefits of the weaknesses of the assured and it is also liable to indemnify all the responsibilities for which the premium has been received, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint deserve acceptance. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with a direction to the OPs to pay the claim amount of the policy i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- as mentioned in Annexure R1 alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of this compliant till realization of amount. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days on receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 18.04.2017.
(Raghbir Singh)
President
(R.S.Panghal) (Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes
Member Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
