BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday the 6th day of January, 2015
C.C.No.37/2013
Between:
S.Meharunnisa,
W/o Shaik Ismail Bash,
D.No.10/702-B,
Gandhi Nagar,
Koilakuntla,
Kurnool District. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. M/S Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Banaganapalli Branch,
Banaganapalli-518 124.
2. M/S Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Represented by its Senior Divisional Manager,
Jeevan Prakash Building,
College Road, P.B.No.10,
Kadapa-516 004. …OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Sri.I.Anantha Rama Sastry, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt.S. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)
C.C. No.37/2013
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
(a)To direct the opposite parties to settle the claim of the complainant which arisen under the policy bearing No.655149491 with accident benefits directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- sum assured Rs.1,00,000/- towards accident benefit and accrued bonus.
(b)To award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant.
(c)To cost of the complainant.
(d)To such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The facts of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the mother of Late Shaik Anwar Basha. On 28-03-2009 Shaik Anwar Basha insured his life with the opposite party No.1 under the policy bearing No.655149491 for Rs.1,00,000/- with accident benefits on the half yearly premium amount of Rs.2,647/- with its table and terms of 179-16. The complainant is the nominee under the policy. On 19-09-2012 the insured died while he was undergoing the treatment for the injuries received by him in the road accident occurred on 11-09-2012. The opposite parties issued policy after completed all formalities and insured was subjected to the medical test also. The complainant being the nominee under the policy submitted the claim to opposite parties. The opposite parties repudiated the claim on the ground that the deceased insured suppressed the information with regard to his age and declare that his age was about 20 years at the time of obtaining the policy, as per Driving License of the deceased the insured was minor aged about 15 years at the time of taking policy. The development officer of the opposite parties satisfied with regard to the age, income, health condition, of insured and recommended to issue the policy then only the opposite parties issued policy in favour of the insured. So as to escape from its liability the opposite parties relaying on the false ground in order to repudiate the claim. There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 filed written version and the same was adopted by opposite party No.1. It is stated in the written version that the complaint is neither just nor maintainable either in law or facts of the case. It is admitted that opposite parties issued policy bearing No.655149491 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the complainant is the nominee under the said policy. It is also admitted that the complainant submitted claim form to opposite parties and the same was repudiated on 30-03-2013, on the ground, that as per the driving license his date of birth is 12-06-1994, the insured was minor aged about 15 years at the time of proposal and at the time of death and he was in eligible to enter into any contract. The contract is void abinitio. He has made incorrect statement regarding his age in the Proposal Form, the deceased life assured committed the breach of terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. The opposite parties are not liable for any payment under the above policy. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of opposite parties filed Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the insured Shaik Anwar Basha took the policy from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 under Ex.B2 bearing No.655149491 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with accidental benefits on the half yearly premium of Rs.2,647/- dated 28-03-2009. Ex.B1 is the Proposal Form. The deceased insured died on 19-09-2012 while he was undergoing the treatment for injuries received in a road accident took place on 11-09-2012. The Koilkuntla Police Station Registered a F.I.R. in Crime No.64/2012, which is marked as Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the Death Certificate issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool District dated 15-10-2012. The Voter ID Card of deceased insured is marked as Ex.A3. Ex.A4=Ex.B3 is the Repudiation Letter, Ex.B4 is the Driving License issued by Additional Licensing Authority, RTA, Nandyal. Admittedly the complainant submitted claim form to opposite parties and the opposite parties repudiated the claim under Ex.A4=Ex.B3 dated 30-03-2013, on the ground that the insured concealed the material facts regarding his age at the time of taking policy.
8. The complainant in her sworn affidavit stated that the deceased was not having birth certificate he was given approximate age in proposal form and even before issuing the policy the deceased Shaik Anwar Basha was subjected to medical test and after duly satisfied with regard to age, health condition the opposite parties issued policy in favour of the insured. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the entire proposal form was filled up by the Agent and the agent collected Voter ID Card and noticed the year of the birth of the decease is 1991. Basing on the Voter ID Card the agent put the approximate age of 20 years and there is no material to suppress the facts regarding his age and the driving license is issued on 02-07-2012 by which date the policy was in existence. The Development Officer also satisfied with the statements of insured and recommended to issue the policy. The medical examiner of opposite parties also examined the deceased by conducting the ossification test. It is further contended that so as to prove the age of deceased/insured the opposite parties produced Ex.B4 attested Xerox copy of Driving License but they did not filed any affidavit of competent authority, who issued the Driving License to deceased and to prove the genuiness the document.
9. The opposite party No.2 in his sworn affidavit stated that the proposal was duly signed by the deceased life assured and mentioned as the date of birth is 01-07-1989 and was having 20 years at the time of taking policy, but basing on the driving license Ex.B4 the date of birth is 12-06-1994 over stating the age of 5 years and he was not eligible to enter into the contract of insurance. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that if the minor enter into the contract is void abinitio as per the general principles of contract and the deceased insured suppressed the material fact regarding his age and violated the terms and conditions of policy, so any omission on the part of insured shall render this assurance invalid and the money shall stand forfeited to the corporation. The opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant according to the terms and conditions of the policy.
The issuance of the policy and death of the insured, the complainant is the nominee under the policy is not disputed. The complainant made a claim to opposite parties and opposite parties repudiated the claim, on the ground that insured suppressed his correct age and falsely declare that he was 20 years at the time of proposal and his date of birth is mentioned as 01-07-1989. The opposite parties accepted the date of birth of insured and the nature of age proof is shown as S.D. which stands for self declaration and he had no formal education and his education qualification is shown as nil. The agent of opposite parties is filled up the proposal from and the medical examiner the development officer of opposite parties also certified that he was having 20 years at the time of submitted the proposal from. There is an endorsement in policy and Ex.B2 that accepted with 1.00% age extra it is clear that the opposite parties accepted the age of deceased/insured submitted on the proposal form Ex.B1. The opposite parties accepted it and well aware of the facts regarding his age and issued policy. Now the opposite parties wants to contract by producing Ex.B4 driving license of the insured/deceased wherein the date of birth of insured is mentioned as 1994. The opposite parties have not examined the agent or its development officer who attested the transaction on submission of proposal form. The opposite parties did not choose to either examine or to file an affidavit of competent authority who issued Driving License (Ex.B4) to deceased/insured. The certificate issued by Registrar of births and deaths is the more authentic certificate to prove the age of person but opposite parties did not produce it, but Voter ID and Driving License are not authentic documents to prove the correct age of an individual. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that Ex.B4 is not conclusive proof to prove the age of insured/deceased to support his version he cited a decision reported in F.A.No.15/2012 A.P. State Commission where init was held that the Registrar of Birth and Deaths is the competent authority to issue birth certificate and its is taken as more authentic and conclusive rather than a mere self serving statement of date of birth while admitting the students in the school. In instant case also the opposite parties did not produce any birth certificate of insured/deceased. Merely basing on driving license without any supportive evidence we could not come to in conclusion that the insured was minor at the time of obtaining policy.
Even though it is assume that the insured/deceased was minor at the time of taking policy. According to law of contracts if the minor enter into contract, it is voidable at the option of minor and minor can repudiate the contract after attaining the age of majority if it is disadvantageous to minor. During the subsistence of contract if minor attains age of majority and elect it to continue the contract by paying consideration, and it is advantageous to the minor, the contract becomes valid. In instant case the insured paid premiums towards his insurance policy. The opposite party accepted the age of insured and issued policy in favour of the insured. Now at the time of settlement of claim the opposite party repudiated the claim on the reason of age is unjustified and not reasonable.
10. The burden is on the opposite parties to establish that the deceased/insured suppressed the material facts regarding his age. The opposite parties failed to produce contemporaneous evidence to show that the insured/deceased was minor at the time of obtaining policy. We consider all the material available on record and in the light of cited decision we hold a opinion that there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled for an assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with accidental benefits under the said policy.
11. POINT No.iii:- The complainant claimed for assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards accidental benefits and accrued bonus and further claimed of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, but it is excessive. The complainant is entitled as a nominee for an assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with accidental benefits under the said policy.
12. In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with accidental benefits under the said policy, and further direct to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the complaint. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 6th day of January, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of FIR in Crime No.64/2012 dated 19-09-2012.
Ex.A2 Death Certificate issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths,
Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool District dated
15-10-2012.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Voter Identity Card.
Ex.A4 Repudiation Letter dated 30-03-2013.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Proposal Form dated 03-03-2009 along with declaration of age (F.No.5096) of the DLA.
Ex.B2 Policy bearing No.655149491.
Ex.B3 Original speaking order of the opposite party No.2 dated
03-03-2013.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of LLR issued by the Additional Licensing Authority,
RTA, Nandyal.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
