ORDER

Per: RamPraweshDas (Member)

Dated-22.01.2024

1.        The present appeal is being  preferred against the rectified order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Jehanabad, Bihar in consumer complaint Case no.05 of 2014whereby  the learned forum arbitrarily without giving any prior official intimation to the Appellants, rectified the original order dated 24.04.2015 which partially allowed the complaint and directed Reliance life Insurance Co. Ltd to make payment of the premium deposited at the time of the insurance i.e. Rs.15,075/- with 12% interest from the date when the complainant deposited  the claim form i.e. 22.04.2013 and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental and financial loss and cost of the case within 2 months. However, by said rectification the above mentioned compliance amount of Rs.15,075/- was increased to Rs.1,15,000/- and appellants were directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- with 12% interest from the date when the complainant deposited the claim from i.e. 22.04.2013 and also to pay Rs,10,000/- towards mental and financial loss and litigation cost of the case within 2 months instead of Rs.15,075/- as directed before. It is  pertinent to mention here that appellants were ready to honur the order dated 24.04.2015 as with the bonafide intent to comply the same issued cheque dated 22.06.2015 for Rs.29,035/- in favour of Girija Bind along with e-mail letter dated 22.06.2015.

2.       The facts of the case as  briefly stated is that the complainant wife Kalo Devi has taken insurancepedeey through the opposite party no.4i.e. Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. on 31.12.2012 for a sum assured of Rs.51,000/-  which premium of Rs.15075/- was paid on 31.12.2012.Kalo Devi died due to heart attack on 01.03.2013 on the way of Doctor. Insurance company was well informed of her death and as per the instruction claim form was submitted in his office on 12.04.2023 along with required paper & original bond paper. In the meantime surveyor appointed by opposite party no.1 &2 who came for enquiry and demanded money for submitting report in his favour. But the complainant did not obliged him. Hence,even after lapse of one year no payment was made by the opposite parties on the ground that his wife was no valid proof of date of birth at the time of Insurance.The opposite parties took affidavit and thereafter did the Insurance and now their defence for her age which was disclosed at the time of Insurance cannot be the basis of denied the death claim. Hence he has prayed for payment of Rs.1,51,000/- the Insurance amount with 12% interest thereon and as Rs.25,000/- for physical and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as a cost of litigation as well.

3.                    After notice opposite parties appeared and filed written statement separately stating therein that the claim of the complainant wasbased on the policy which was void-ab-initio; invalid and unforceable. It was further submitted that insuredmis-leading by claming her age as 46 years whereas she was actually 56 years of her age at the time of taking Insurance. His further stated that due to concealment of her age by the insured, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There was no deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties no.1 &2. They have relied upon the various cases  (i). Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2009 CTJ 956. (ii). Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Orissa State Co-operative Bank &Anr. (2012) CPJ 310 (NC).  (iii). PC Chakoandanr. Vs. Chairmau, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.2008 CPJ, 78SC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They have further relied upon (i) Sita Holiday Resources Vs. M/S MohanlalHarbas Lal and Company-1999 3 123 PLJR (ii) Dinesh Bhai Chandra Vs. LIC and another (iv). LIC and others Vs. Asha Goel 2001-02-Sec.-107 first appeal no.242 of 2006 decided on 27.07.2006. It is further case is that the complainant filed a copy of Ration Card, Voter list and voter card of the insured to prove the case that Kalo Devi was not at 46 years of her age despite Insurance was done and therefore nowshe was not able to get the death claim.  The opposite parties have filed separate written statement stating therein that they had only forwarded thedeath claim to the opposite parties no.1&2 Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. On 04.06.2013 and thereafter prays that they may be expunged from the name of the party. Opposite parties no.4 has also files a separate written statement and submitted that there was no relationship between them and Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd.

4       After being heard the parties and considering the materials available on record the District Forum has held that one thing is certain that affidavit with regard to age was filed as per the suggestion and at the behest of the opposite party and accepted the same but after the death of insured the claim was repudiated, on the other hand insured had submitted Ration Card showing her age along with executing an affidavit. This is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1&2 and hence the District Forum has passed the impugned order on 24.04.2015 which was further rectified impugned order dated 15.05.2015 was passed by learned District forum in consumer complaint case no.05 of 2015.

5.          Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this rectifiedorder dated 15.05.2015, this appeal has been preferred before this State Commissionon the groundthat :-

a).That the learned forum acted illegally and with material irregularity.

b). That appellant company specifically mentions that the complainant has no approached the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and with malafideintention obtained the rectified order copy by misguiding the Hon’ble Forum.

c). That the stand of appellant company with respect to modification of the order copy was not on the record. Had the intimation was made to appellant company with respect to said modification, the appellant company would have never consented for the same.

d). That the complainant has deliberately misled the learned forum by projecting that appellant had no objection with modification of the order dated 24.04.2015 by furnishing false statement.

e). That the rectification of order by the learned forum is not sustainable in law or on facts and is fit to be set aside.

f). That the order was rectified without any prior intimation to the appellants, if the same is not set aside then irreparable damage and injustice will be mete out to appellant company.

6. The appellant has preferred case law  as follows:-

   (i).  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes RedressalCommissiona in its judgment titled as DineshbahaiChandranan vs. LIC &Anr. First Appeal No.242/2006, Decided on27.07.2006.

(ii). Hon’ble State Commission, Bihar Patna in first Appeal No.486/2007 (L.I.C Vs Ram Babu Gupta).

(iii) LIC &ors vs. in First Appeal No.486/2007 (LIC Vs Ram Babu Gupta)

(iv) LIC &ors Vs. Asha Goel (Smt. &Anr. (2001) 2 SCC 16.  All the above case laws has own facts and circumstances bearing own merit but common observations is that the Insurance is a contract of utmost good faith and insured has to disclosed all the material facts at the time of taking insurance and suppression of material fact shall be valid grand for repudiation in which it clearly shows the fraudulent and dishonest intention.

7.    Both the parties have filed written notes of argument, the Respondent  in his written notes of argument reiterated the same ground which has been taken in complain case and submitted that when the Insurance company after taking affidavit and Rasion Card for proof of her age and admitted and excepted the proposal form and accepted the premium amount as well. The insured did not make any inquiry in the free looking period it clearly shows the completion of the contract.Then Insurance Company has no ground to repudiate the claim on the ground of her age where in the rural areasan illiterate lady resides and it was not supposed to having a valid certificate of School .

7. Heard both the parties and perused  the material available on records we are not anywhere inclined to interfere with the impugned order of District Forum.There is no illegality and irregularity in  the matter of law and facts of the order  passed by the District Forum inviting no interference. Accordingly this appeal has no merit and it is hereby dismissedwith as to no cost.

8.A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019.Order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the State Commission.

9.            Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.