Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1052/2016

M/s Shriram Life Insurance Co Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manjunath - Opp.Party(s)

A.L Mariyappa

21 Oct 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1052/2016

 

M/s. Shriram Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office at : No.31-32, V Floor Ramky Salenium Beside Andhra Bank Training Centre Financial District, Gachibowli Hyderabad 500 032   Branch Office: Varikar Complex, Opp. Bus Stand Koppal Taluk and District Rep. by its Assistance General Manager Sridhar E., S/o. E.J. Lingam   (By Sri. A.L. Mariyappa) V/s	……Appellant
Manjunath S/o. Bheemappa T. R/at Achar Narasapura Post Marali, Gangavathi Taluk Koppal District   (By Sri. N.P. Singri)	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by OP aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.30/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Koppal (for short District Forum and parties as arrayed in the consumer complaint). 

2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of this appeal would be stated that father of complainant Mr. T. Bheemappa has proposed for insurance policy for himself and submitted a proposal form dated 04.04.2013 paying Rs.16,685/- on 05.04.2013 and the same has been accepted by OP for issuance of policy under the name and style Shri Raksha policy plan in his favour commencing risk from 24.05.2013, for a period of 15 years with annual premium of Rs.11,142/- for a sum assured Rs.1,50,000/- for all term of 15 years and the insured nominated complainant in the said policy.  Since the insured died on 25.09.2014 and he died within 2 years from commencement of policy, it was referred to an investigator and the report of investigation revealed that the age of insured was about 69 years as on 01.01.2014 as per Voter’s List of Karnataka and the maximum age applying for Sri Raksha plan is 65 years which came to be repudiated as such complainant raised a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was enquired into by the District Forum by receiving evidence of both parties and thereby allowed the complaint directing OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.2,500/- towards litigation expenses within one month, failing which, to pay such amount together with 12% interest from the date of filing of compliant till realisation which is now in this appeal on the grounds that District Forum below has failed to consider Section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938 and failed to appreciate the materials placed on record by OP has erroneously recorded finding accepting the age of the insured as found in the pan card and not considering the age as found in voter’s card as such the findings recorded by the District Forum below is totally erroneous is contrary to facts and law is liable to be set aside.
3. The Commission heard Learned Counsels on record for the parties to the appeal and examined the impugned order dated 22.03.2016 passed in C.C.No.30/2015 on the file of District Forum, Koppal. Now we have to examine whether findings recorded by the District Forum below is contrary to facts and law required to be interfered under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?.
4. In so far as delay of 18 days to file this appeal could be condoned for the reasons sworn in by Mr. E. Sridhar, Assistant General Manager of OP as the head office of the OP is situated at Hyderabad and the records were given to the legal section to verify is quite but natural that such delay could occur, but, facts remain that Commission to examine whether OP could able to show that the finding recorded by District Forum below erroneous or contrary to facts and law.  In this regard, having been examined the impugned order, in our view the only point that arises for consideration   would be whether OP could able to show / establish before District Forum that the insured was not within the age group of below 65 or to show the age of the insured is suppressed with ulterior motive ? 
5. According to the OP, the insured in question, before he could obtain ‘Shri Raksha’ plan had furnished Pan Card wherein his age was recorded at 53 years, whereas his age could be seen  recorded in the Voter’s list about 69 years as on 01.01.2014.  Admittedly, the policy proposal is dated 04.04.2013.  As such Learned Counsel for the OP would submit insured was aged about 68 years as on the date of proposal to obtain Shri Raksha insurance plan which was not at all considered by the Forum below and the forum below has failed to consider the legal effect of Section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938 which is mandatory application on the part of insured to disclose all material facts in respect of his age.  It would be appropriate to take notice of the fact that the Forum below relied on decision reported in II (2011) CPJ 17 (NC) in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another Vs. Gopal Singh wherein it was held age given in Voter’s list cannot be taken as sure test to determine exact age of a person.  Further, in II (2014) CPJ 20A (CN) (AP) in the case of Reliance Life Insurance Ltd. and another Vs. B.Koti it was held entries made in ration card or Voter list by themselves cannot be considered as criteria to ascertain correct age of insured more particularly when there has been discrepancy in age of insured as seen from Voter’s list and ration card.  Further, in the case of Punjab Balwinder Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. it was held once insurer has admitted age of insured as correct, it cannot be repudiate insurance claim on this ground later on with the allegation that insured had defrauded the insurer by making a false statement.  Thus, keeping in mind the principles enunciated in these decisions the District Forum below cannot be said failed to perceive either facts or law as to how the age in so far as these matters are concerned has to determine, as such we are of the view forum has rightly recorded finding that the age as found in PAN card has more authenticity than the age found in Voter’s list.  In other words,   Forum below has rightly not accepted the age as found in the Voter’s List.  Further to be observed herein that burden is on the OP to establish   age as found in PAN card is incorrect and to that effect  to rebut the said document, has failed to place other materials like  Certificate of Birth obtained from the Office of Registrar of Birth and Death or school records if insured had been to school or records other than the Voter’s list, since, age as found in Voter’s list has no authenticity, since they are used to be recorded only on oral presentation of the person and to observe herein that we had an experience that even such presentation  use to record incorrectly, since the Election of India entrust such works to private parties and the private parties use to engage inexperience persons who have no responsibilities, they do works for wage and go, as such the impugned order does not call for any interference in this appeal for any of the grounds set out in the appeal in exercising powers vested under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

​

 

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Sd/-

MEMBER

CV*