Date: 30-10-2014

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Hon’ble Member

The instant appeal is directed against the order dt. 17-01-2014 in Case No. 09/2013, passed by the ld. District Forum, Murshidabad, whereby the complaint has been allowed against the OP.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OP thereof has preferred this appeal.

Case of the Complainant, briefly stated, is that he is the nominee of Policy no. U156887300, being taken by Naimuddin Sk, who died on 06-02-2011.  Subsequently, the Complainant lodged a death claim with the OP insurer, but the latter, after an inordinate delay, on 17-01-2012 sent an account payee cheque for a sum of Rs. 16,089.18, though he is entitled to get Rs. 2,00,000/- being the sum insured of the aforementioned policy.  Hence, the case.

It is the contention of the OP that on or about November 2010, one Naimuddin Sk. applied for an ‘Invest Assure Flexi Supreme’, for which, the maximum age limit is 60 years.  As per his proposal, the OP issued policy no. U156887300 in favour of said Naimuddin Sk. on 11-11-2010.  As per the age proof document i.e. Voter ID Card, as submitted by him, his date of birth was mentioned as 01-01-1960.  On 27-06-2011, the OP received a Death Claim Intimation Form from the Complainant disclosing that the policy holder, Naimuddin Sk. died on 06-02-2011. During processing of the claim, it was revealed that whereas the policyholder mentioned his date of birth in the application form as 01-01-1960, but as per the identity card of the Eastern Railway, his date of birth was 13-01-1947, and in fact, the OP received a Certificate from the Eastern Railway confirming the date of birth of the policy holder as 13-01-1947.  As the policyholder provided untrue information in respect of his date of birth, the policy contract became void as per the terms and conditions of the policy in question, and therefore, the OPs are not bound by the said contract.  However, the OP, as per the ‘Misstatement Clause’ of the policy in question, sent a cheque for Rs. 16,089/- towards full and final settlement of the policy in question.

It is to be considered in this appeal as to whether there is any factual and/or legal infirmity in the impugned order, or not.

Decision with reasons

            Ld. Lawyer for the Appellants has submitted that the instant Life Insurance Policy is meant for persons below the age of 60 years.  However, the deceased insured obtained the policy in question through fraudulent means, by suppressing a significant material fact as regards his age.  While the insurer rightfully given his actual date of birth to his erstwhile employer, Eastern Railway, the deceased insurer produced his Voter I Card, as an age proof document at the time of applying for the policy in question.  For such deceitful act of the deceased insurer, the present Complainant should bear the brunt.   It is very much clear from the Service Certificate-cum-Identity Card, issued by the Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Malda dated 01-02-2007, that the deceased insured retired from service on superannuation on 31-01-2007, after continuing service w.e.f. 03-07-1970, to become eligible for pensionary benefits.  As per the said certificate, his date of birth was 13-01-1947, whereas, in the Proposal Form dated 09-11-2010, he mentioned his date of birth as 01-01-1960   Accordingly, the liability of the Insurance Company, on proper assessment of the claim, stood limited to Rs. 16,094.18.  Therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside.

            Ld. Lawyer for the Respondent, however, made out that the only issue/bone of contention of this case revolves around the date of birth of the deceased insured.  Notwithstanding the disparity as regards the date of birth of the deceased insured, the Voter I Card, being issued by the Election Commission of India, is widely accepted as an authentic document so far age of a person is concerned and the same cannot be discarded as such.  No wonder, therefore, the Ld. District Forum very rightly allowed the case in favour of the Complainant, which should be kept in its present order and form.

           The documents produced by the parties are totally at variance with each other.  Although the Ld. Forum relied upon the Voter I Card vis-à-vis Service Certificate of the deceased insured, a closer eye view of both the age proof documents on record, however, makes it abundantly clear that it should have been the other way round.  Reasons follow:-

            First of all, the sanctity of the Certificate, which shows the date of birth of the deceased insured as 13-01-1947, being issued by the Railway Authority has not been disputed by the Complainant.

            Secondly, even for the sake of argument, if the date of birth, as mentioned in the Voter I Card, is accepted as a correct one, then going by the same, the deceased insured joined service at the age of 10 – an absurd proposition by any stretch of imagination.

         Thirdly, as per the Voter I Cards of the deceased insured as well as the Complainant, they were 35 years and 20 years respectively as on 01-01-1995.  By that token, at the time of the birth of the Complainant, his father (deceased insured) was only 15 years old.  Differently put, at the time of marriage, the deceased insured was not more than 14 years – something quite hard to believe.  

            Fourthly, it has been the unison view of local people, so emanated from the statements placed on record by the OP insurer, that the insured died at the age of about 70 years and significantly, such statements have not been challenged by the Complainant. 

           Interestingly, in the Proposal Form, the deceased insured mentioned his occupation as ‘self-employed’, instead of ‘retired’, which is a blatant example of falsity at its worst.   

           It is also noteworthy that, for some obscure reasons, the ‘Age at Death’ column in the Death Intimation-cum-Claimant’s Statement Form, had been left blank at the time of staking insurance claim by the Complainant. 

           Evidently, the Ld. District Forum decided the fate of the case in favour of the Complainant taking the age mentioned in the Voter I-Card as a sheet anchor, though, in the light of foregoing discussion, there can be no two opinions as to the fact that had the Ld. Forum accorded due consideration to the rationale being put forth by the OP insurer with documentary proof, they would not have obliterated the case of the OP insurer. There is every merit in the case of the Appellants, whereas the case of the Respondent is bereft of any merit. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and hence, the same is set aside.

           In the result, the appeal succeeds.

Hence,

ORDERED

            That the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondent, but without cost.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Consequently, the complaint case stands dismissed.