Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 105.
Instituted on : 14.02.2017.
Decided on : 30.01.2019.
1. Pardeep, aged about 22 years, son of Sh. Saviya.
2. Saviya son of Sh. Jagata @ Jagat, Both R/o Village Nepewala, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind(HR).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., IInd Floor, Ashoka Building, Ashoka Chowk, Delhi Road, Opp. Myna Tourist Complex, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Lodha Excelus, 13th Floor, Appollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahaluxmi, Mumbai (Maharashtra) through its Chief Manager/authorized signatory.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Jasvir Kundu, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the Smt. Bhateri mother of complainant No.1 had purchased insurance policy No.17756032 on dated 17.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.7,05,704/- with the OPs at Rohtak and in this way the life of his mother was insured with OPs and complainant is nominee of his mother. On 11.08.2015, complainant’s mother has died naturally due to the heart attack. After that, complainant being nominee of his mother submitted death claim with the OPs by completing all formalities, but OPs have repudiated the said claim vide letter dated 25.01.2016 on the ground of “Non-disclosure of Misrepresentation”. That the act of opposite parties of not paying the alleged death claim is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.07,05,704/- as death claim and other policy benefits alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of his mother till its final payment and Rs.50,000/- as compensation as explained in relief clause to the complainants.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in its reply submitted that it is admitted to the extent that the death claim was lodged with the OPs but the said death claim was rejected by the OPs vide repudiation letter dated 25.01.2016 for the reasons as mentioned in the letter dated 25.01.2016 as “non-disclosure of Misrepresentation of age”. It is denied that the proposal was only filed by the agent of the company rather all the formalities were completed after obtaining the required information from the life insured deceased. However, it is most respectfully submitted that before acceptance of the proposal by the OPs, adequate information with regard to the product, nature and its significance was given to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the OPs are not liable to make any payment to the complainant as the policy has been obtained by the life insured deceased by committing fraud with the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the OPs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.04.2018. Ld. counsel for the OPs has stated that reply already filed on behalf of OPs be read in evidence and closed the same on 09.10.2018.
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 not been settled by the opposite parties and the opposite parties vide their letter Ex.C1 dated 25.01.2016 has discontinued the policy on the on the ground that: “Non-disclosure of misrepresentation of age”. In this regard, it is observed that the policy was commenced from 17.07.2015 and the same has been discontinued vide letter dated 25.01.2016 i.e. after a gap of 6 months and only after filing of death claim by the complainant. No misrepresentation was found by the opposite parties at the time of proposal or even before the death of life assured. It is also on record that respondent counsel made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of opposite parties be read in evidence and no affidavit or document has been placed on record by the respondent’s officials. Moreover neither any investigation report nor any document e.g. proof of age of life assured has been placed on file by the opposite parties to prove that the age disclosed in the proposal form was false. Even no proposal form has been placed on record by the opposite parties to prove that whether the same was filled by the life assured herself or the agent of opposite parties. Hence in the absence of proposal form, investigation report or any other document regarding the age proof of life assured, it is not established that there was misrepresentation on the part of life assured. Hence the claim of the complainants has been repudiated on flimsy grounds and the complainants are entitled for the sum assured as per policy.
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.705704/-(Rupees seven lac five thousand seven hundred and four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.02.2017 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.
