Punjab

StateCommission

FA/212/2014

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rattan Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjneesh Malhotra

12 Jan 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,  DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.212 of 2014                                                      

  Date of institution  : 05.03.2014     

Date of decision     :  12.01.2015

 

1. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhagat Singh Chowk, Chhabra Complex, Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab, through its Branch Head/Incharge.
2. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., M.V. Road & Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 069 through its Managing Director.

(Through Sri Srinivas s/o Late V.M. Somayajulu, Aged 51 years, having office at SBI Life Insurance Company, Ist Floor, Kapas Bhawan, Central Processing Unit (CPC), CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 614.

…….Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Shri Rattan Lal s/o Puran Ram, Village Sappan Wala, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab.

……..Respondent/Complainant  

First Appeal against the order dated 6.1.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.   

Quorum:- 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

      Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:-

          For the appellants     : Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate.

          For the respondent   : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate.   

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

          This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 6.1.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Rattan Lal, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay him the assured sum of Rs.2,70,000/-, along with vested bonus and the accrued benefits and to pay interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the complaint i.e. 29.7.2013 till realization and Rs.5,000/-, as litigation expenses.

2.      The complainant averred, in his complaint, that his father Puran Ram purchased Policy No.35022205402 from the opposite parties, which commenced with effect from 23.4.2012 and the sum assured was Rs.2,70,000/-.  The insured was required to make payment of Rs.80,559/- on account of the premium, which also included the service charges.  He paid the first premium for the Policy and when the Policy was still in force, he died on 30.12.2012; as a result of heart attack.  His death was intimated to the opposite parties and all the necessary documents were submitted to them.   They were required to settle the claim within a reasonable period after the receipt of those papers but instead of settling the claim, they repudiated it, vide letter dated 29.3.2013, on the ground that the insured had misstated his age at the time of the coverage of the insurance and that he was much older than the age disclosed by him at the time of signing the proposal form.  They also alleged that in case the insured had declared his true age, they would have declined to cover him for life insurance.  In fact, no such concealment of any material fact, as alleged by the opposite parties, was made by the insured and he had truly stated his age.  Even the Panchayat of the Village had given a Certificate, vide which the date of birth of the insured was certified to be 20.2.1962.   The ration card was obtained by the insured on 18.7.2011 showing his age 55 years at that time.  All these documents were submitted to the opposite parties in support of the age of the deceased and still they repudiated the claim made by him (complainant).  They only opted to make the payment of Rs.77,930/-, which was credited in his account on 6.7.2013.   The non-payment of the assured sum of Rs.2,70,000/- tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; as a result of which he suffered harassment, mental agony and financial loss.  He claimed Rs.15,000/-, as compensation for that deficiency in service and Rs.5,500/-, as litigation expenses; besides the payment of Rs.2,70,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18%.  He prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly.

3.      The opposite parties filed joint written reply before the District Forum, in which they admitted that the Policy in question was obtained from them by Puran Ram, insured, father of the complainant and that the claim submitted by the complainant after his death was repudiated, vide letter dated 29.3.2013, on the grounds mentioned therein.  While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that in the proposal form filled up by the insured for obtaining the Policy, he mentioned his date of birth as 20.2.1962 and in support thereof he submitted copy of Voters I.D. bearing No. JGK2690717.  It was on the basis of that declaration that the proposal was accepted and the Policy was issued.  After his death on 30.12.2012, they conducted an investigation and it was revealed that at the time of the proposal he was 70 years of age and he wrongly mentioned his age to be 50 years.   The maximum age for the issuance of the Policy was 60 years and had the insured revealed his correct age in the proposal form, they would not have accepted the proposal and issued the Policy.  By virtue of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, they are well within their rights to call for the age proof and to repudiate the claim as per the terms and conditions of the Policy.  In the ration card itself, the insured disclosed his age as 65 years and in the voters list published in the year 2012 his age was mentioned as 70 years.  In the medical record of Dr. Ashok Garg Hospital dated 10.12.2012 his age was mentioned as 71 years.  The statement of the complainant was also recorded and at that time he stated the age of the insured to be 70 years.  Thus, the insured made a wrong declaration regarding his age by putting his signature on the declaration contained in the proposal form.  It was mentioned in that declaration itself that in case the information supplied by him was found to be false or he misstated any fact or suppressed the material information, then the contract of insurance shall become null and void and all premiums paid under the Policy shall stand forfeited.  As a result of the giving of wrong age the contract of insurance became void ab initio.  The insured committed breach of the principle of utmost good faith by concealing his correct age and by providing false details in respect thereof in order to procure the insurance policy fraudulently.  The complaint involves larger issues, which are to be thoroughly investigated and enquired into and, as such, only the Civil Courts are competent to handle the same.  The complainant could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, as there was no such deficiency in service on their part.  Only a regular suit is maintainable.  The nature of the complaint is such that the same cannot be effectively dealt with in the summary proceedings.   They prayed for the dismissal thereof with costs.

4.      Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6.      It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that sufficient evidence was produced before the District Forum that at the time Puran Ram, insured, filled up the proposal form for obtaining the policy in question he was 70 years old and made a misstatement regarding his age by concealing the material facts.   Investigator was appointed by the opposite parties, who after thorough investigation submitted his report, which was proved on the record as Ex.OP-1&2/5.  On the basis of the evidence collected by him, he came to the conclusion that at the time of filling up the proposal form, the insured was 70 years old.  Even in the voters list for the year 2012 Ex.OP-1&2/6 his age was mentioned as such.  In the Ration Card, Ex.OP-1&2/7 also his age was described as 65 years.   He also referred to the medical record Ex.OP-1&2/9 dated 5.12.2012, in which the age of the insured is recorded as 71 years and also to the statement of the complainant Ex.OP-1&2/8 in which he himself stated that his father/insured was 70 years old.  In view of all this reliable evidence, the District Forum was not justified in concluding that the age of the insured at the time of filling up the proposal form was 50 years and not 70 years.  Once it is proved that he wrongly stated his age and by concealing the material information he obtained the insurance policy, that contract of insurance contained in the Policy becomes void as per the declaration made by the insured himself in the proposal form, which was proved on the record as Ex.OP-1&2/2.  Therefore, the findings recorded by the District Forum cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.  When the contract of insurance itself was void, no such sum assured thereunder was payable and the claim made by the complainant, as the nominee of the insured, was validly repudiated.

7.      On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged evidence so produced by the opposite parties was correctly ignored by the District Forum.  Voters list cannot be relied upon in proof of the age of the insured and the opinion of the Investigator, which is based upon that voters list, is also to be ignored.  In the Ration Card the insured was described to be 55 years old on the date of the issuance thereof and, as such, his age on the date of filling up the proposal form comes to 50 years.  In support of his age, he had produced his Voters ID Card before the District Forum, which was relied upon at that time and the same was the authentic proof of his date of birth.   He further submitted that even the Sarpanch of the Panchayat had given a certificate that the date of birth of the insured was 20.2.1962 and the same was recorded in the Voters ID Card. No illegality was committed by the District Forum by recording a finding regarding the age of the insured on the basis of those documents.  He also submitted that the opposite parties were required to make an enquiry regarding the age of the insured at the time of accepting the proposal and after that proposal has been accepted, they cannot dispute the statements made therein.  He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

8.      The argument raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that the correctness of the statements made in the proposal form cannot be disputed by the opposite parties after the acceptance of that proposal is without any merit.  Admittedly the insurance policy was issued on 23.4.2012 and the insured died on 30.12.2012 i.e. within the period of two years of the issuance of the Policy.   According to Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, it is only after the expiry of two years of the issuance of the Policy that the same could not have been called in question on the ground of misstatement of facts by the proposer.  As the death took place within two years of the issuance of the insurance policy, so the opposite parties were very much right to challenge the statements made by the insured in the proposal form.

9.      For proving that the date of birth was correctly given by the insured in the proposal form as 20.2.1962, the complainant proved on record the Ration Card, Ex.C-9 and the Certificate of Karnail Singh, Sarpanch, Ex.C-8.  Vide that Certificate, the said Sarpanch certified that the date of birth of the insured was 20.2.1962.  No such authority to declare the date of birth of a villager is vested in the Sarpanch or the Gram Panchayat of the Village.   The Village Chowkidar is the only person with whom the birth in the village is being got recorded and he records the same in the register, which is to be maintained by him as per law.  The complainant could have examined the Chowkidar of the Village along with that register and the same would have been the best evidence for proving the date of birth of the insured.  No reliance can be placed on the certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the Village.   In the Ration Card Ex.C-9 the age of the insured is recorded as 55 years.  However, it is not possible to find out from this certified copy Ex.C-9 as to on which date this Ration Card was issued.   It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties also relied upon this Ration Card by proving on record the photostat copy thereof as Ex.OP-1&2/7.  In this Ration Card, the age of the insured is recorded as 65 years and that of his wife Shanti Devi as 60 years.  The date on which that Ration Card was issued is not mentioned.  There is another Ration Card on the file, which is next to the said Ration Card.  In that Ration Card the age of the insured is recorded as 55 years and that of his wife as 50 years.  The date of issuance thereof is clearly mentioned therein as 18.07.2011.  Thus, at the most it can be said on the basis of this Ration Card that in the year 2011 the insured was 55 years old.  In the voters list Ex.OP1&2/6 the age of the insured is recorded as 70 years.  It is now well settled law that the age of a particular voter cannot be ascertained from the voters list unless the person who recorded the particulars of the voters in the list comes forward and certifies those to be correct.  It was on the basis of this voters list and as per the Ration Card that the Investigator concluded that the insured was 70 years of old.  The affidavit of that Investigator was not proved on the record and in the absence of such an affidavit verifying the report to be correct, no reliance can be placed thereupon.  The opposite parties have also relied upon the statement of the complainant Ex.OP-1&2/8 and the medical report Ex.OP-1&2/9, in which the age of the insured is described as 70/71 years but no affidavit of any witness was proved on the record for proving the correctness of those documents.  No evidence has been produced for proving that the said statement bears the signatures of the complainant and that the said medical record pertains to the insured and his correct age was recorded therein.

10.    The opposite parties themselves proved on record the voters ID Card of the insured as Ex.OP-1&2/3.  In this voters card his date of birth is recorded as 20.2.1962 and the same was issued on 29.12.2007.  The Investigator in his report while talking about this voters card came to the conclusion that as per this Voters ID Card, the age of the insured was found to be correct but the same was tampered for age.  We have not been able to find any such tampering in the date of birth in the Voters identity card.  For proving that fact, the opposite parties were required to prove on the record the Voters list, which was prepared in the year 2007, so as to prove that in that Voters list some other date of birth/age of the insured was recorded.  This Voters Identity Card in the present case is the best evidence before us for determining the date of birth of the insured and as per that Card, his date of birth is 20.2.1962.  Thus, he correctly stated his age in the proposal form and the opposite parties were not justified in repudiating his claim on the ground that he had given a wrong date of birth in the proposal form for obtaining the insurance policy.  Correct findings to that effect were recorded by the District Forum and there is no ground for upsetting those well reasoned findings.  The appeal is dismissed accordingly.  However, no order is made as to costs.          

11.    The appellants/opposite parties deposited the sum of Rs.25,000/- on 5.3.2014 at the time of filing of the appeal.  They deposited another sum of Rs.1,45,623/- on 5.5.2014 in compliance of the order dated 14.3.2014.  Both these sums along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.

12.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                                                                                                 (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                           

                                                                                                                                                 (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

January 12, 2015                                                                                                                                 MEMBER

Bansal