Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/591

ARIF KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE LIC LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.JAYANT R.VIPAT

02 Feb 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 02.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.52/2015 by District Commission, Dewas)

 

ARIF KHAN, S/O RIYAZUDDIN KHAN,

R/O 39, PATHAN KUAAN, OPPOSITE

POLICE CHOWKI, DEWAS (M.P.)                                                                                … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

    RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    BRANCH-RAMNAGAR CHOURAHA,

    A.B.ROAD, DEWAS (M.P.)

 

2. BRANCH MANAGER,

    RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    CLAIM DEPARTMENT, H-BLOCK,

    FIRST FLOOR, DHIRUBHAI AMBANI BLOOD CITY,

    NAVI MUMBAI (M.S.)

 

3. GENERAL MANAGER,

    RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    CLAIM DEPARTMENT, H-BLOCK,

    FIRST FLOOR, DHIRUBHAI AMBANI BLOOD CITY,

    NAVI MUMBAI (M.S.)                                                                                               … RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri R. N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents.                

                 

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 02.02.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dewas (for short ‘District  Commission’) in C.C.No.52/2015, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant

-2-

against the opposite parties/respondents-insurance company (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’) was dismissed.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant’s cousin brother, Late Shri Samad Khan (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased-insured’) during his life time had obtained ‘Reliance Life Insurance Pay Five Plan’ Insurance Policy No.50428173 for a period of ten years w.e.f. 30.09.2012 to 30.09.2022 and had paid Rs.49,999/- as first premium amount which was to be paid annually. The appellant was the nominee under the said policy.  It is alleged that the deceased-insured died on 12.10.2012 regarding which the respondents were informed. The claim form along with requisite documents was submitted with the respondents but the respondents rejected the claim filed by the appellant. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the respondents, the appellant approached the District Commission, seeking relief. 

3.                The respondents-insurance company in their reply before the District Commission resisted the complaint on the ground that the information provided by the deceased-insured regarding his age and address of residence was incorrect.   He had presented fake documents, on the basis of which insurance policy was issued.  The deceased-insured thus concealed the information at the time of filling up of the proposal form in order to obtain insurance policy, therefore, the claim is rightly denied. There is no deficiency in service on part of the respondents and therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

4.                Heard.  Perused the record.

 

-3-

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased-insured had only provided voter ID proof to the respondents at the time of obtaining insurance policy. No other document as alleged by the respondents was provided by the deceased-insured.  The District Commission has erroneously dismissed the complaint, merely by relying the documents put forward by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order argued that the document in support of proof of age of the deceased-insured was verified by the respondents and was found to be fake. The address of the deceased-insured given in the proposal form is different from the address given in the voter ID proof provided by the deceased-insured.  The deceased-insured had given false information, on the basis of which the policy was issued.  The contract of insurance was null and void and therefore, the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint and this appeal also deserves to be dismissed.

7.                The proposal form filled by the deceased-insured in order to obtain the insurance policy is Exhibit C-3. Marksheet by Middle School, Jaitpura, District-Dewas is annexed as Exhibit C-4 in the record of the District Commission.  It is submitted by the respondents that since it was early death claim, investigator was appointed in the matter in order to carry out the investigation. The investigator has pointed out that there is difference in the address of the deceased-insured in the proposal form than that of the voter ID proof given by him. The Principal of Govt. Higher Secondary School, Pipalyapala, District-Dewas had remarked that

-4-

certificate for address proof and identity was not issued from their institution. The documents filed by the respondents also suggest that the Head Mistress of Government Middle School, Jaitpura has denied of having any information about the marksheet as aforesaid.

8.                We find that the appellant has not controverted the submissions of the respondents by way of counter affidavit.  In such circumstances, we infer that the District Commission has rightly held that the deceased-insured had suppressed the information with respect to his age and address in filling the proposal form in order to obtain the aforesaid insurance policy. 

9.                Therefore, we reach a conclusion that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs New India Assurance Company Limited, 2009 (8) SCC 316.

10.               In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which is hereby upheld.

11.               As a result, this appeal, which is devoid of any merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

     (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)        (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                       PRESIDENT                                        MEMBER