Haryana

Karnal

607/2012

Sanjay S/o Ashi Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Saini

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.607 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.:18.04.2012

                                                              Date of decision:30.12.2016

 

Sanjay son of Shri Ashi Lal resident of house no.3880, Gali no.3, Shiv Colony, Kaithal Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Model Town, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                        ………… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Rajesh Saini Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. L.R.Chuchra Advocate for the Opposite party.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that his mother Pushpa Devi (the deceased life assured) purchased two policies bearing nos. 177050097 and 177050098 from opposite party, on 27.1.2009. His mother expired on 14.9.2011. Thereafter, he lodged claim with opposite party and submitted all the documents, but the opposite party postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, vide letter dated 13.2.2012, repudiated the claim on the ground that his mother had shown her age 54 years at the time of purchasing the policies, whereas she was 66 years old at that time. The repudiation of the claim was illegal and unjustified, which amounted to deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental agony and pain apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is an abuse of process of law; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the deceased life assured purchased two polices on 1.1.2009 and the same were issued on her self declaration. Copies of the ration card and voter card were demanded from the complainant on 28.10.2011. As per the voter card, the age of the deceased life assured on 1.1.1994 was 50 years. After going through the above proof of age, the deceased life assured was found of 66 years age at the time of purchasing the policies, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A  and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Surinder Kumar Administrative Officer Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The deceased life assured had purchased two polices from the opposite party on 27.1.2009 and she expired on 14.9.2011. The complainant being the son of the deceased life assured lodged claim with the opposite party in respect of the said policies, but his claim was repudiated on the ground that the deceased was aged 66 years as per record on the date of purchasing the policies, whereas she told her age as 54 years on that date. Thus, the material question which arises for consideration is as to what was the age of the deceased life assured on the date of purchasing the policies.

7.                A perusal of the proposal form Ex.OP2 shows that the date of birth of the deceased life assured was mentioned as 16.9.1954. The form was filled up by Man Singh agent and thumb marked by the deceased life assured. Certificate was also given by the agent that the contents of the proposal form were explained to the deceased life assured. In document Ex.OP4 also the date of birth of deceased life assured was mentioned as 16.9.1954. The said document was also filled up by Man Singh agent and thumb marked by the deceased life assured. On the basis of the said documents, the date of birth of deceased life assured was mentioned as 16.9.1954 in the insurance policy, the copy of which is Ex.OP6. However, the copy of the voter identity card of the deceased life assured Ex.OP5 shows that the same was issued on 14.9.1994 and the age of the deceased life assured was mentioned as 50 years as on 1.1.1994. Thus, as per the voter identity card, the deceased life assured was aged more than 65 years on the date of purchasing the policies, whereas she had mentioned her date of birth in the proposal form as 16.9.1954 i.e. 54 years at the time of purchasing the policies. The complainant could not produce any other document regarding date of birth of deceased life assured in order to establish that on the date of purchasing the policies she was aged 54 years. Under such facts and circumstances, it stands established that the deceased life assured was more than 65 years of age on the date of purchasing the policies, whereas in the proposal form she mentioned her age as 54 years. In this way, she concealed the material fact from the opposite party, while purchasing the policies.    

8.                It is settled proposition of law that contract of insurance falls in the category of contract uberrima fides i.e. utmost good faith and concealment of any material fact renders the policy void. The deceased life assured concealed the fact of her age in the proposal form by mentioning her date of birth as 16.9.1954, whereas according to the voter card her age was 50 years on 1.1.1994, which means she was aged more than 65 years on the date of purchasing the policies. Thus, she concealed the material fact from the opposite party. Had she disclosed her correct age to the opposite party then it was for the opposite party to issue or not issue the policies in her favour. Consequently, the contract of insurance was void. Therefore, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party, cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified in any manner.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 30.12.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                          President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member