Date of filing:24.05.2013
Date of disposal:09.09.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday, the 09th day of September, 2014
C.C.No.112/2013
Between:
1. R.Rama Chari S/o R.Bramhaiah,
H.No.19-2-352, Rani Nagar,
Old Town,
Ananthapuramu.
2. R.Saraswathi W/o R.Rama Chari,
H.No.19-2-352, Rani Nagar,
Old Town,
Ananthapuramu. … Complainants
Vs.
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Branch-II, Subash Road,
Anantahpuramu. … Opposite Party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri R.Ramakumar, Sri K.V.Ramana Reddy & Sri K.Nagaraju, Advocates for the complainants and Sri V.Krishna Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt. M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards insured and accident benefit and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainants are the permanent resident of Ananthapurmu town and one R.Rupesh Kumar is the son of complainants. The said R.Rupesh Kumar insured his life with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in the month of March 2011 vide policy bearing No.655779903, the said R.Rupesh Kumar met with an accident on 29.03.22012 on N.H.205 road near Mannilla cross and succumbed to injuries and died while undergoing treatment in Government Hospital, Anantapur and criminal case was also registered under section 304(A) IPC in crime No.20/2012 of Itikalapalli P.S. After the death of R.Rupesh Kumar the complainants claim the insured amount. But the opposite party sent a letter dt.19.01.2013 stating that the insurance policy was repudiated for with-holding material information by the insured. The insured R.Rupesh Kumar gave a self-declaration supported PAN Card obtain with life time gave declaration that it was about 20 years on the date of insurance policy. The repudiation made by the opposite party without any enquiry amounts to deficiency of service. The act of the opposite party is also caused mental agony to the complainants. Hence, the present claim compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and physical inconvenience to the complainants.
3. The counsel for the opposite party filed counter denying all the allegations made in the complaint and admitted that late R.Rupesh Kumar taken a policy bearing No.655779903 from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is true and the premiums will be paid on quarterly basis and taken the policy in the month of March,2011 by submitting a proposal form to the opposite party is true. The further allegation that the insured was died on 29.03.2012 and the complainants made claim towards policy amount is also true. In fact immediately after receiving the death intimation of the policyholder the opposite party asked the complainants to furnish all the records to proof of accidental death and also the age proof of the deceased. The opposite party made inquiry with regard to the claim and the enquiries reveals that the deceased was a minor i.e., 25.03.2011 on the date of submitting the proposal form. The opposite party also stated that the enquiries reveals that the policyholder suppressed the material facts regarding his age and obtained the policy by playing fraud on the public institution in order to get wrongful gain. Hence, the complainants are not entitled any amount. The opposite party also submitted that the claim made by the complainants an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony is also not entitled. The opposite party also submitted that the enquiries clearly reveals that the deceased was studied upto seventh class in the private school as per records the date of birth of the deceased as 02.06.1995. As per the records the age of the deceased on the date of submitting the proposal form and taking the policy is 16 years only but not 20 years as mentioned in the proposal form. The allegation in the complaint he submitted PAN Card for his age proof and he was aged about 20 years on the date of taking the policy is not correct and the said PAN Card do not reflect correct age of the deceased. Thus the deceased though he was minor on the date of taking the policy suppressing material facts, fraudulently obtained policy which is absolutely against the rules. The opposite party submitted that as per the rules the contract entered into by the minor is not maintainable and it is void abinitio and the same was informed to the complainant’s through the registered letter dt.19.02.2013 by this opposite party and repudiated the claim under valid grounds. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the repudiation is made under valid grounds. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainants are the parent of one R.Rupesh Kumar and the said R.Rupesh Kumar has taken a policy form the opposite party in the month of March,2011 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and he used to pay the premium on quarterly basis regularly. The policyholder died on 29.03.2012 in a road accident and a case was also registered by Itikalapall P.S., under crime No.20/12. Immediately after the death of the policyholder the complainants made a claim with the opposite party and the opposite party repudiated the claim on 19.01.2013 by stating that the policyholder suppressing the material fact of his age and obtained the policy by paying fraud with the ground mentioned by the opposite party is not correct and the policyholder was aged about 20 years at the time of taking the policy and the complainants are nominees they are entitled the compensation from the opposite party and also entitled caused towards mental agony and deficiency of service.
6. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the proposal form filed by the complainants with misrepresenting his age and obtained the policy by paying fraud. The opposite party argued that after claim made by the complainants the opposite party company made enquiries and reveals that the deceased was aged about 16 years at the time of taking the policy and he has taken the policy by suppressing material fact the opposite party also argued that at the time of submitting policy submission of PAN Card regard his age is also does not disclose the exact age of the policyholder. The counsel for the opposite party argued that as per the study certificate the deceased was born in the year 1995 and he was aged about 16 years at the time of taking the policy. As the contract act the minor’s contract is in enforceable and the contact is void abinitio. The opposite party also argued that the repudiation made by the company under valid grounds there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainants are not entitled any claim and liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the contract entered by the deceased policyholder is valid?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
iii) To what relief?
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A4 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B5 documents.
9.POINT NO 1:- As per Ex.A4, B1, B2 & B3 clearly shows that one R.Rupesh Kumar has taken policy with the opposite party in the month of March, 2011 by paying an amount of Rs.1531/- towards premium and insured for Rs.1,25,000/. As per Ex.A1 & A3 the said R.Rupesh Kumar died in a road accident on 29.03.2012. There is no dispute with regard to the taking of the policy by R.Rupesh Kumar with the opposite party under policy bearing No.655779903 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in the month of March,2011 and there is no dispute with regard to the death of the policyholder on 29.03.2012. There is no dispute with regard to the claim made by the complainant within time. The counsel for the opposite party argued that at the time of taking the policy in the proposal form proposer i.e., deceased made false representation about his age and get the policy by suppressing material fact of the age and the enquiries made by the opposite party clearly reveals that the deceased was minor at the time of submitting proposal on 25.03.2011. The opposite party argued that as per Ex.B5 the deceased was aged about 16 years but he declare himself as 20 years and obtained policy by playing fraud. The document i.e., PAN Card submitted by the deceased at the time of taking the policy is not correct and the PAN Card does reflect correct age of the deceased. Hence, the contract entered by minor is void abinitio. The council submitted a decision about the suppressing of the material fact reported in 2008 Revision Petition NO.1190 in the above case the Hon’ble National Commission held that since it is evident that the insured has intentionally shown his wrong age and thus suppressed the material fact, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The counsel for opposite party submitted a decision reported in III (2002) CPJ 10 (NC) in the above case the Hon’ble National Commission held that for incorrect information regarding health, age and income- insurance contract invalid abinitio and there is no deficiency of service and repudiation is justified. In another ruling reported in AIR 1981 Madhya Pradesh 69 in the above case also the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that; Documentary evidence to prove correct age- held, admissible at the stage of making payment of amount to insured.
10. The counsel for the complainant argued that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of entering into contract and he submitted PAN Card for his age proof after satisfying with PAN Card and self-declaration made by the deceased and the documents submitted by the proposer then only the opposite party issued policy and the document filed by the complainant clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The alleged study certificate is fabricated one and the same was filed only to evade the claim. In the proposal i.e., Ex.B2 a self-declaration of the deceased was admitted by the agent of the opposite party and his development officer. Hence the contract entered by the deceased is valid as the policyholder was aged about 20 years at the time of entering into the contract and he attained the age of majority to enter to contract and the contract is valid and enforceable under law. The counsel for the complainant submitted reported 2002 (3) L.S.164 in the above case the High Court of A.P. held the corporation miserably failed to establish that the deceased policyholder intentionally misled corporation by giving a misstatement of facts regarding his health- corporation not entitled to repudiate claim on ground of misstatement of facts.
11. When we go through Ex.A4 & B3 i.e., the policy the age of the policyholder was mentioned as 11.06.1991. Ex.A1 is the F.I.R. to show that the policyholder was died in a road accident. In Ex.B1 proposal form the occupation of the deceased was mentioned as Gold Smith and educational qualification as private study. Ex.B1 policy was taken by the deceased through the agent of the opposite party and the agent put the signature in the witness column as M.V.Chandra Sekhar, LIC Agent Code No.14926021, Anantapur and Ex.B2 proposal form which declares the age of the proposer as 20 years and admitted by the agent and development officer of opposite party satisfied with the age of the deceased as 20 years and put their signature after thoroughly satisfied with the particulars furnished proposer made in the proposal. Now the opposite party came up with a plea that the proposer made false representation about his age and obtained the policy by playing fraud. If the opposite party questioned the same at the time of issuing the policy the true will came out. The policyholder submitted PAN Card and declared himself in the proposal as 20 years if the declaration made by the proposal is not satisfied the opposite party ought to have rejected to issue insurance policy on the ground that the proposer is under age to enter into contract but the same was not done so. Ex.B2 was admitted by the agent and development officer and put their signature as witness now the opposite party denying about the submission of PAN Card at the time of taking the policy by the policyholder. The opposite party is big company and very well known that PAN Card will be issued by Income Tax Department, Government of India for after submitting the relevant documentary proof then only the department will issue PAN Card. PAN Card is one of the approved document for identification of the person, PAN Card (Permanent Account Number) will be issued only after verifying the relevant documents submitted by the person and it will not be issued to minors due to their in capacity. Since the deceased was a PAN Card holder and the plea taken by the opposite party that he was a minor at the time of taking the policy and the contention of the opposite party is ruled out and the document filed by the opposite party Ex.B5 is supported of the contention that the deceased policyholder was a minor at the time of taking the policy is only a study certificate from the private school is not better document over the PAN Card. Hence the study certificate filed by the opposite party cannot be stand as fool proof over PAN Card. In the above observation we are of the opinion that the contract entered by the deceased was valid and enforceable under law and the deceased was having capacity to enter into contract. Hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
12. The counsel for the complainant argued that after the death of the complainant’s son the complainant’s made a claim before the opposite party but the opposite party repudiated the claim under invalid grounds that the complainants are not entitled the sum assured. The repudiation made by the opposite party is invalid and not justifiable. The counsel for the opposite party argued that as the policyholder suppressed the material fact about his age during his life time and the enquiries of the opposite party revealed that the policyholder is minor at the time of taking the policy and the contract entered by the minor is void abinitio under law. Hence, the opposite party repudiated the claim and on the basis of misrepresenting the facts at the time of taking the policy. Hence the complainants are not entitled any claim as made in the complaint.
13. We have already discussed about the age of the policyholder and this Forum comes to a conclusion that the policyholder is having the age of majority at the time of taking the policy and he himself made a declaration that he is aged about 20 years and he has having source of income to pay premiums. The PAN Card in which this Forum is comes to conclusion that the deceased was aged about 20 years which is marked as Ex.B4 the date of birth of policyholder is mentioned as 11.06.1991 so the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of taking the policy. The counsel for the opposite party submitted the citations of Hon’ble (National Commission) and other State Forums when we go through the contents of the judgments filed by the opposite party in all the cases the complaint filed inadmisable document for their age proof which is not admissible under law like Horoscope certificate doctor certificate for age proof etc., Whereas in the present case the policyholder submitted PAN Card for his age proof which is authenticity to his age proof. In the above judgments we are also observed that the opposite party insurance company examined their people and the persons who issued the documents in which the insurance company repudiated the claim. Whereas in the present case the opposite party is not filed any affidavit in which if relying about the age of the policyholder as minor. Hence, we are not considering the rulings submitted by the opposite party and we are of the view that there is no misrepresentation or misstatements on the part of the deceased policyholder and he submitted relevant document for his age proof and we are also observed that there is no cheating on the part of the policyholder and he rightly declared his age as 20 years. The repudiation of the opposite party is not justifiable and the grounds which are mentioned for repudiation is not reasonable. The opposite party ought to have settle the claim when the complainant made a claim immediately. But the opposite party are not settled the claim these are all amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to pay a sum assured. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
14. In the result the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards sum assured, Rs.2000/- towards mental agony, Rs.2,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.1000/- towards costs of the complaint the said amount is to be payable within one month from the date of this order failing which interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of death of the deceased i.e., 29.03.2012 till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 09th day of September, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1. Photo copy of FIR in crime No.20/2012 dt.29.03.2012 issued by
Itikalapalli P.S.
Ex.A2. Repudiation letter dt.19.01.2013 sent by the opposite party to the
1st complainant.
Ex.A3. Photo copy of Death Certificate relating the R.Rupesh Kumar issued by
Registrar of Births and Death, Anantapur Municipal Corporation.
Ex.A4. Photo copy of Policy bearing No.655779903 issued by the opposite
party in favour of the deceased.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1. Original proposal form dt.25.03.201 relating to the deceased R.Rupesh Kumar.
Ex.B2. Original form No.3260,5098 wherein the DLA had declared his age as 20 years.
Ex.B3. Original policy bearing No.655779903 issued by the opposite party in favour of the deceased.
Ex.B4. Photo copy of PAN Card No.AYBPR0250J relating to the deceased.
Ex.B5. Original date of birth certificate issued by Head Master, Lakshmi English Medium High School, Anantapur.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
