Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.03.2017
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay policy benefit of Rs.75,000/- ( Seventy Five Thousand only ).
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as compensation and cost of litigation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he is the nominee of deceased Late Krishna Nand Singh who was his father. His father Late Krishna Nand Singh took a policy with opposite parties company on 23.09.2009 vide policy no. 00244265 and deposited Rs. 15,000/- for this policy. The policy was for Rs. 75,000/-. The depositor died on 09.02.2010 and being nominee, the complainant applied for insurance but unfortunately after much pursuation the company after investigation have replied that the claim of the complainant stands rejected as the age of policy holder was wrong.
On behalf of the opposite parties a written statement has been filed stating therein that this case is not maintainable because this complaint is highly belated and time barred.
It has been further asserted by the opposite parties that the life assured had indulge in concealment and misrepresentation and gave false representation in the proposal form regarding his age being 54 years at the time of taking proposal on 23.09.2009 because as per voter list of 2005 the life assured was 59 years at the time of proposal form.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The claim of the complainant has been rejected by the opposite parties vide annexure – 4 which shows that at the time of insurance the life assured was more than 59 years. It appears from the investigation report that the company has relied on voter list of 2005.
It is needless to say that in the voter list or in the election commission card the age of a person is not entered after proper verification of the relevant documents. Hence the voter ID cannot be relied so far as correctness of age is concerned.
So far age is concerned, the age mentioned in the school leaving certificate or matriculation certification of a person is regarded as correct. The complainant has annexed school leaving certificate of the policy holder in which the age is mentioned as 01.01.1955. This corroborates the contention of the complainant that the depositor had entered correct date which was based on school leaving certificate.
We also feel that the company must take into account the age entered into school leaving certificate of the life assured. The photocopy of which has been annexed with the complaint petition.
We therefore find and hold that by not relying on the school leaving certificate and rejecting the claim of the complainant on the basis of voter ID etc. the opposite parties have committed serious deficiency.
Hence we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 75,000/- ( Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will pay 10% interest on the amount of Rs. 75,000/- ( Rs. Seventy Five Thousand only ) till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
