AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 309/2006 against C.C. 30/2005, Dist. Forum, Nalgonda   

Between:

Smt. Gunda Kusumamba

W/o. Nagabhushanam

Age: 52 years,

R/o. Bothalapalem (V)

Damacherla Mandal

Nalgonda Dist.                                            ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant

And

1.The Life Insurance Corporation of India

Kodad Branch, Kodad

Nalgonda District

Rep. by its Branch Manager

2. The Life Insurance Corporation of  India

Divisional Office, Lakhpath Building

S.D. Road, Secunderabad

Rep. by its Divisional Manager.                  ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:                          Mr. V. Gourisankara Rao  

Counsel for the Resps:                               M/s. M. Seshagiri.

QUORUM:

                          HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

&

                                            SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH  DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

          The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

          The case of the complainant in brief is that  her son G. Nageswara Rao  aged  21 years  during his life time took the  policy from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs valid from 28.12.2001 to 27.12.2026 for 25 years.  She is the nominee under the policy.   While so  he died on 3.4.2002 due to jaundice.  When she made the  claim the same was repudiated  on the ground that he was minor by the date of proposal.  Therefore, she filed the complaint for recovery of  policy amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

          The insurance company resisted the case.  While admitting issuance of policy in favour of  complainant’s son  and that she was the nominee, however, denied that the deceased was  21 years by the time when he had obtained the policy.   On receipt of claim form, they  made enquiry and came to learn that the insured had over-stated his age as 20 years, and in fact he was born  on 10.5.1984 and not on 10.5.1982 as stated.  To that effect a certificate was issued  by the Headmaster of the school.  Since the assured  filed a false  date of  birth certificate, did not disclose correct information, the policy has become void.  Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and Exs. A1 to A3, while the opposite parties filed affidavit evidence of its officer and Exs. B1 to B4. 

The Dist. Forum  after considering the evidence placed on record and basing on Ex. B3 certificate issued by the Headmaster  opined that  the deceased had given  wrong date of birth  and therefore, the policy was void,  and consequently, the complainant was not entitled to any amount.

Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that  the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.   The date of birth  of the insured was correctly mentioned  as 10.5.1982 evidenced under certificate issued by the Headmaster Ex. B4.   The date of  birth certificate Ex. B3 issued by the  Headmaster certifying the date of birth  as 10.5.1984  cannot be relied.  It was not authentic.   A panel doctor  has examined the insured  and satisfied with his age, recommended the same.   In fact, the very insurance agent stood as witness to the proposal.  Therefore she prayed that the appeal be allowed.

It is an undisputed fact that  G. Nageswara Rao, son of the complainant  had taken an insurance policy for Rs. 2 lakhs.  Ex. B1 is the proposal form Dt. 15.12.2001.  He showed his date of birth  as 10.5.1982.   A certificate Ex. B4 issued by the Headmaster was also enclosed disclosing his date of birth  as 10.5.1982.  Before accepting the proposal, admittedly, the panel doctor has examined the insured, satisfied with his health condition, age etc.  His signature  finds  place  on Ex. B1 proposal form.  Apart from it,  the very agent of  insurance company stood as witness to the proposal.  The insured died on  3.4.2002 due to jaundice. 

When the complainant made the claim, the insurance company repudiated the same  on the ground that in the enquiry conducted in this regard,  the very Headmaster gave Ex. B3 another date of birth certificate mentioning  the date of birth as 10.5.1984.   It is not known who gathered this date of  birth certificate.  No  affidavit of the  Headmaster was filed in order to show that the date of birth  noted in Ex. B3 was in fact was noted in the register maintained by its school.  Having issued Ex. B4 certificate earlier, the insurance company could have confronted it to the  Headmaster.   It could have addressed a letter to the  Headmaster for invoking his version of the matter.   No effort whatsoever was made to find out as to who issued Ex. B4 certificate and whether such a certificate was obtained properly.  Without any evidence whatsoever,  basing on  an unauthenticated Ex. B3 certificate, the claim of the complainant  cannot be refused.  More so, in the light of a panel doctor  having examined the assured, besides that the very insurance agent  standing as witness  for the proposal.  There is no proof  that the deceased furnished wrong date of birth.  At no time, this was an issue.  Evidently the insurance  company  was  searching  for  some  ruse  to  repudiate  the  claim. 

It is unfortunate reputed insurance companies are adopting  these tactics  to deny lawful amounts due to the policy holder or his nominee as we observe more in cases of persons belonging to the villages and illiterates.  Sooner it changes  its attitude it is better for them.  The mother was denied the benefit for a period of  six years by resorting to litigation.     The Dist. Forum did not appreciate any of these facts.   It is laconic. The rejection of the claim is unwarranted. 

In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum,. consequently, the complaint is allowed.  The respondent insurance company is directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint i.e., 26.2.2005 till the date of realization with costs  computed at  Rs. 2,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT                                               LADY MEMBER

                             Dt. 27. 10. 2008.