O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of complainant/appellant for partly setting aside the judgment and order dated 04.09.2015 passed in Complaint Case no. 07 of 2014 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Buxar whereby and whereunder opposite parties have been directed to refund back the amount of one premium of Rs. 86,445.80/- without any interest within 45 days from the date of order failing which the opposite parties shall become liable to pay interest @8% per annum however, the Ld. District Consumer Forum rejected the claim of complainant for payment of sum assured amount.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that mother of complainant Kaushalya Devi had taken a life insurance policy on 07.08.2012 from the opposite party /insurance company in which complainant was made nominee and first premium of Rs. 86,445.26/- was paid and remaining four annual premium were to be paid in subsequent four years and the maturity period of policy was 20 years. The proposal form dated 29.08.2012 was accepted by the insurance company and policy bond was issued to her.
3. The policy holder died on 08.12.2012 i.e three months nine days after issuance of policy as such it was an early claim and was investigated by the insurance company and it was found that the deceased policy holder had given wrong information with respect to her age as 01.01.1963 and in support of her proof of age she had submitted an ID card issued by Election Commission of India in which her age was shown on 01.01.1994 as 31 years. She also provided an admit card issued by Bihar School Examination Board showing her date of birth as 01.01.1963.
4. Both the documents were investigated by the investigator appointed by the insurance company who found both the documents to be forged and fabricated documents. The investigator also collected some other documents with respect to age of deceased life assured in which her age was found to be  80 years. In the voter list published by the Election Commission the age of deceased life assured was shown as 80 years. The Mukhiya of the gram panchayat also certified the age of deceased to be 80 years. The statement of many villagers and neighbours of deceased life assured was taken by the investigator and all disclosed that deceased life assured died at the age of 80 years. In view of investigation report the claim of complainant was repudiated on 26.09.2013 by insurance company.
5. Aggrieved by repudiation of claim by the insurance company complainant filed consumer complaint case before the District Consumer Forum, Buxar for payment of sum assured amount upon which notices were issued to the opposite parties and they appeared and filed their written statement.
6. Opposite party no. 3/ PNB MetLife in its written statement admitted submission of proposal form dated 29.08.2012 as well as payment of first premium of Rs. 86,445.26/- against the sum assured amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- in which complainant was nominated as beneficiary. The opposite party evaluated and processed the proposal form on the basis of information furnished by deceased life insured and issued the insurance policy on 31.08.2012.
7. The opposite party received the death claim intimation from complainant intimating that life assured died on 08.12.2012 due to chest pain which was duly acknowledged by opposite party on 06.08.2013. Since it was an early claim same was investigated and assessed by the opposite party as the person insured died within 3 months and 9 days from the date of issuance of insurance policy. Opposite party through its investigation agency got the claim investigated and in course of investigation and assessment of claim it was revealed that deceased life insured had produced fake age proof. The voter ID card and the admit card submitted at the time of proposal was found to be fake. Some documents such as voter list of the year 2011 was collected during investigation in which age of deceased was shown as 80 years. The Mukhiya of the gram panchayat certified in writing that the deceased was 80 years of age at the time of death and accordingly, claim was repudiated on 26.09.2013 for misrepresentation of material fact.
8. The opposite party no. 2 in its written statement has further stated that after repudiation of claim by insurance company as per request letter of complainant dated 18.10.2013 regarding refund of first premium amount of policy addressed to the Senior Manager (claims) PNB MetLife Insurance Company Ltd. the opposite parties paid and refunded the amount of Rs. 85,023/- in the account of complainant on 27.11.2013 and complainant has filed this complaint case even after receiving said amount.
9. The District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on records held that complainant has failed to establish his case and is not entitled for the claim amount. The District Consumer Forum has further held that after repudiation of claim by insurance company the complainant made a request to refund the premium amount and on such request the insurance company has refunded the premium amount as such complainant is estopped to claim any further amount and disposed of the complaint case, aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed on behalf of complainant.
10. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the respondents and considered their submissions. Perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record.
11. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation with respect to age of the life assured. The insurance company on the basis of investigation report came to a conclusive finding that life assured had wrongly mentioned her age to be 49 years on the date of submission of proposal form and in support of which she had submitted two documents i.e ID card and Admit Card both of which was found to be fake and forged. In voters list, certificate of mukhiya age of life assured is 80 years which has not been disputed by complainant.
12. Once the age of the life assured was disputed by the insurance company onus shifted upon the complainant to establish on the basis of reliable and cogent evidence that age of the deceased life assured was 49 years in 2011 and not 80 years as found by insurance company during investigation. Complainant has failed to establish that there was no misrepresentation with respect to age of deceased life assured by leading convincing evidence. The photographs appearing on proposal form and Voter ID Card do not resemble. Even otherwise after repudiation of claim by the insurance company on the request of complainant insurance company refunded the first premium amount of the insurance policy and having received the same complainant is estopped to challenge the order of repudiation.
13. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(Md. Shamim Akhtar)                                                                                          (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                              President

Md. Fariduzzama