The necessary facts giving rise to this application are as follows:-

 

Contd.P/2….

Page – 2

 

repudiated by LICI through Regtd. Letter No.JDO/MKtg-D.claim/Repdt dt.28.11.2006 stating interalia that the claim is not payable under the terms and conditions of the policy in question for submission of false statement about the age and service. There after the present complaint has been filed praying reliefs mentioned in the petition of complaint.

 

 

 

1.      Whether the petitioner be termed as ‘consumer’ in terms of Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.?

2.      Whether the service of the LICI suffers from deficiency?

3.      Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

 

 

                        ‘Consumer’ means any person who hires any services for consideration. ‘Service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provisions of facilities in connection with insurance as defined in Clause (o) of Seb. Sec.(i) of Sec.2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

 

The term ‘deficiency’ has been discussed in 1991(2) CPR 567 (569)

Contd.P/3….

 

Page – 3

 

wherein it is stated that any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of service undertaken to be performed amounts to deficiency.

 

 

          The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the repudiation of the present petitioner by the O.Ps. can be justified or not. It has been observed by the Hon’ble State Commission of Rajasthan appearing in 2006 CTJ 169(CP) (SCDRC) which one noted below:-

 

          “It is the fundamental principle of Insurance Law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties know. The insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the insurance company and its agents to disclose all material facts in their knowledge since obligation good faith applies to both equally.

 

           The onus probandi, in cases of fraudulent suppression of material facts rests heavily on party alleging fraud namely the insurer.”

 

          In the present case, the onus of proof that there is suppression of facts by the complainant is on the Insurance Company to prove what has been assented in the repudiation letter.

 

          In the instant case Insurance Company has filed the Notes on Argument wherein it has submitted that the petitioner as P.W. – 1 has been constrained to admit that the signature appearing in he statement marked Ext.B/1 is of his stating, “not a fact that the writings appearing in the letter dt.26.07.2006 are of mine (Ext.B)”. In this connection this Forum intends to refer a portion of the writing appearing in the Notes on argument, appearing in page-3 wherein suit No.1488 of 1994 decided on 16.05.2003 by the Hon’ble High Court. Therein it has been observed that nobody is expected to sign the documents without reading it or when it is blank and if he does so it does at his own peril.  The admission of the petitioner upon the document in question raises a presumption the document duly filled in when these were signed. 

 

Thus contents of Exts.B and B/1 appeared to be admitted which also include that Jakia Bibi was housewife and she had no income of her own which evidently belies the statement referred to Ext.C wherein she has been shown as bidi worker with annual income of Rs.40,000/-.

Contd.P/4….

 

 

Page – 4

 

In addition to what has been stated above the second fold of argument on behalf of the LICI is that Jakia Bibi has shown her age as 42 years on the date of filling up the proposal form in Ext.C and therein she is stated to be of 42 years old.

 

But the petitioner has filed the original certificate of death vide Ext.3 wherein her age has been shown as 42 years at the time of her death on 26.11.2005 and LIC has filed the xerox copy of Voter Card of Jakia Bibi and therein her age has been shown as 42 years on 01.01.1995 which means that during a period of a decade her age has been kept intact and has not proceeded further which, according to LIC, is a mis-declaration in the proposal form and a false claim that the petitioner’s wife was 42 years old at the time of her death which now appears is not correct.

 

Thus, having given our anxious thought over the matter this Forum is of considered opinion that the deceased made false statement in the proposal form about her age showing 42 years and further that she was employed as a bidi worker with annual income of Rs.40,000/-. A statement of O.P.W. – 1 in this regard deserves credibility wherein at page – 1 he has stated, “in case the insured was not employed in any concern or self employed ………….such a policy cannot be accepted by the corporation.”

 

In fine, this petition is disposed of against the petitioner.

 

 

          In the result, the case fails.

 

          Proper fees have been paid.

 

that Malda D.F. Case No.26/2007 be and the same stands dismissed on contest against O.P. Nos. 1, 3 & 4 (Life Insurance Corp. of India A Body Corporate under Govt. of India, (to be served upon Zonal Manager LICI Eastern Zone Hindustan Building 4, Chittaranjan Avenue Kolkata – 700 071, West Bengal), Senior Divisional Manager LICI Eastern Zonal Divisional Office, ‘Jiban Prakash’ Building, Santipara, Jalpaiguri, 735101, West Bengal and Branch Manager LICI Malda Branch II 420 More, N.H. 34, Malda, West Bengal) and stands dismissed exparte against O.P. No.2 (Zonal Manager LICI Eastern Zone Hindustan Building 4, Chittaranjan Avenue Kolkata – 700 071, West Bengal).

 

          In the peculiar circumstances there will be no order as to cost.

 

          Let a copy of this order be given both the parties free of cost at once.

Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

D.C.D.R.F., Malda                                              D.C.D.R.F., Malda