Karnataka

StateCommission

A/713/2016

Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaysheela - Opp.Party(s)

Raman V

31 Oct 2023

ORDER

                                                                     Date of Filing : 24.03.2016

  Date of Disposal :31.10.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED: 31.10.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.713/2016

 

The Branch Manager

Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

(Formerly known as ING Vysya

Life Insurance Company Ltd.,)

100 Feet Road

(Above IDB Bank and Opp. to Vijaya Bank)

Mandya -571 401

 

Through Registered Office

EXIDE Life Insurance Co Ltd.,

(Formerly ING Vysya Life Insurance

Company Ltd.,)

3^rd Floor, J P Techno Park

No.3/1, Millers Road

Bengaluru – 560001                                                            Appellant

(By Mr V Raman, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

Smt Jaysheela

W/o Sri Nagaraju

D/o Nagesh alias Nagesh Gowda

Kalluveeranahalli Village

Kasaba Hobli

Malvalli Taluk

Mandya District – 571430                                                   Respondent

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 19.02.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.331/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as District Forum)

2.       Heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant.  Inspite of service of Notice for appearance from this Commission on Respondent, none appeared.  Hence, arguments of Respondent is taken as heard.

3.       Perused the Impugned Order, Grounds of Appeal and secured Lower Court Records.

4.       It is an admitted fact that the Late Father of the Complainant, during his life time, on 18.10.2012 had obtained Life Insurance Policy from OP with the Sum Assured being Rs.2,03,500/- vide Policy No.02547245; paid premium of Rs.14,993.41/- and during subsistence of the Policy, the Insured died on 17.08.2014.  The Complainant being the Nominee to the said Policy, submitted the duly filled in Claim Form along with relevant documents to the OP,  but, OP repudiated the Claim with an endorsement stating that as per ONLINE extract of LA’s Voter ID, the Life Assured was aged 71 years, as on 2014, thereby, LA would be 69 years as on the Date of Proposal and the Life Assured had died within one year 10 months from the Date of issuance of the Policy the provisions of Section 45 of the Insurance Act are not attracted and returned the premium amount of Rs.29,165/- by way of cheque dated 02.01.2015.  Therefore, the Complainant had preferred the Complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, deemed it fit to allow the Complaint in part and directed the OP to pay the Assured Sum of Rs.2,03,500/-, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as a Litigation Cost to the Complainant within two months from the Date of Complaint till realisation etc., Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal. In this Appeal, Appellant has taken stand that the Life Assured has expired in very short duration of 22 months from the date of issuance of the policy.   In the Death Claim Form submitted by the Nominee/Respondent herein, she has declared that her age as on 10.12.2014, as 36 years and LA age as 49 years.  This clearly establishes that the Nominee was born to the LA when LA was just 13 years old minor, again it means that LA wife should have been at least 11 years old at the time of delivery and should have conceived at the age of 10 years.  Whether it is possible for a minor girl to conceive and deliver a baby at such young age? Thus it is transparently very clear that LA has misrepresented his and also his daughter’s age at the time of the proposal with ulterior motive.

5.       The observation of the District Forum in its Impugned Order with regard to the Voter ID Document, observed that OP has failed to produce other dependable documentary evidence viz., School Leaving Certificate or Insured Birth Certificate or Medical Certificate showing that the Insured has concealed his real age. The Voter ID card is considered as one of the legally valid documentary proof by all the State and Central Government Departments for benefits under its various Scheme and also financial institutions.   Further recorded that, if OP is in doubt with regard to the age of the Life Assured, at the time of receiving the Proposal Form, should have subjected the Life Assured for clarifying enquiry before issuing the Policy and now taken defense that the Life Assured has concealed his age while obtaining the Policy, cannot be accepted, since OP has not produced any authenticated document to disprove the age of the Insured.

6.       On perusal of Ex-A1 - the Proposal Form submitted on behalf of the Insured, it is seen that at Sl. No.5 : Date of Birth of the Life Assured is mentioned as 01.06.1964; Ex-C2- is the Receipt for the Annual Premium of Rs.14,544/- dated 18.10.2012 and Ex-C4 is the Receipt for the Renewal premium of Rs.14,993.41 dated 02.12.2013.

7.    This Commission observes that either of the contesting parties have made it clear that whether the Late Insured had approached the Office of the OP and demanded for his Life Risk coverage or the OP’s Agents canvassed for new business and roped in the Insured for accepting a New Policy. When the Proposal for a new Policy is received and accepted, OP never felt it to apply his present reasons for repudiating the Claim and his imagination of a minor getting married and minor wife delivered a baby.  Also, in what way it hampers the policies & principles of the OP affected, if a minor is a nominee is an un-answered point of contention.  Further, when a Proposal for issuance of a Policy is accepted and the 1^st year’s premium is received, followed by a renewal premium for the next year, the Insurer cannot back out from his commitment of life coverage of his customer and that too, hurriedly, without any claim from the concerned, return the Premium amounts collected and in our considered opinion, it is an utter Unfair Trade Policy adopted by the Insurance Company. Also, when the Insurance Company feels that it is essential for them to repudiate the Claim, since the Insured has died within 22 months of issuance of the Policy and the death of any person is not at the whims & fancies of the Insured, unless it is an act of suicide, which doubt has also not arisen in the present matter.  The very purpose of obtaining Life Insurance is on the vagaries of the Life of the human beings.

8.       Thus while OP has accepted the Proposal Form by considering the Date of the Birth of the Late Insured as 01.06.1964 and issued the Policy by receiving premiums and disputing the age of Insured Client only at the time of settlement of Claim, by repudiating it, is not only against the business ethics, but also an act of covering the Insurer’s lapse & negligence at the time of acceptance of the Proposal itself and it also attracts the well accepted maxim – Nobody can take shelter under his own mistakes. In the circumstances, the reason assigned by the District Forum in passing the Impugned Order is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference.    Accordingly, Appeal is Dismissed, with no order as to costs.

9.       The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

10.     Return the LCR forthwith to the District Commission.

 

11.     Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

Lady Member                   Judicial Member                     President

*s