BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 29 of 2015

1.         Musstt. Rehna Begum Laskar,

2.         Miss. Dilruba Begum Laskar (Minor)

3.         Md. Fardus Ahmedos Laskar (Minor) ………………………….          Complainant.   

                                                                        -V/S-

1.         Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            9^th & 10^th Floor Building No.2,R-Tech Park Nirlon Compound,

            Next to Hub Mall, Behind 1-Flex Bldg. Goregaon (East) Mumbai-400063.  O.P No.1.

2.         The Branch Manager,

            Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            Silchar Branch.                                                                                                    O.P No.2.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                                       President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha,                             Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                                  Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

            Appeared :-                Sri Arijit Kumar Deb , Advocate for the complainant.

Sri Kajal Chanda, Advocate for the O.Ps.

                         Date of Evidence………………………..    12-05-2016, 15-06-2016

                         Date of written argument………………    19-08-2016, 03-05-2017

                         Date of oral argument…………………..    03-06-2017, 16-08-2017

                         Date of judgment……………………….     01-09-2017

                                          JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                              Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. Musstt. Rehna Begum Laskar and her minor daughter Dilruba Begum Laskar and minor son Md. Fardus Ahmed Laskar brought the complaint U/S 12 of C.P Act, 1986 against the Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and its branch Manager of Silchar branch for award of Rs.6,24,070/- (Six Lac Twenty Four Thousand & Seventy) only.

2. As the children of Musstt. Rehna Begum Laskar are minor, so both the minor are represented by their mother and accordingly she has been referred hereinafter in this judgment as ‘complainant’. The Reliance Insurance Co. is referred as O.P No.1 and the Branch Manager, Silchar branch is referred as O.P No.2.

3. To get the aforesaid awarded amount the complainant brought the following facts:-     Husband of the complainant late Fozinul Haque Laskar purchased Insurance Policy during his life time on 25-05-2013. The sum assured was Rs.4,74,070/- vide Insurance Policy No. 51002043. But very unfortunately after about 1 ½ month from the date of commencement of the coverage of life risk of Fozinul Haque Alskar, he expired on 04-07-2013 due to Cardio Respiratory failure. Accordingly, the complainant submitted the death claim form to the O.Ps but O.Ps illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the genuine claim on false and twisted pretext that the life assured Fozinul Haque Laskar furnished false date of birth in the proposal form at the time of purchasing the Insurance Policy.

4. In view of the above, the complainant approached to the Insurance ombudsman at Guwahati but Insurance ombudsman by order dated 26-08-2015 dismiss the claim and observed that the claimant may approach any other appropriate court of law for seeking resolution of the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant brought the instant complaint before this Consumer Forum.

5. In due course of process the notice of the institution of the complaint before this Consumer Forum have been served to the O.P No.1 and 2. Both the O.P No.1 and 2 submitted their joint W/S. In the W/S the O.Ps stated inter-alia that the life assured Fozinul Haque Laskar furnished false date of birth and false school certificate at the time of making entry in the proposal form, for which insurance company is not liable to satisfy the claim. Of course, in the W/S they did not challenge the cause of death or date of death. They have not also challenged other particulars mention in the proposal form. However, during hearing the complainant deposed as P.W and exhibited as many as 8 (Eight) number of documents including Insurance Policy, School Certificate, Affidavit dated 18-02-2013 of the deceased of Fozinul Haque Laskar declaring his date of birth(D.O.B). The contesting O.P also examined Subhash Bhattacharjee the Manager of the O.P No.1 and exhibited a copy of the proposal Form vide Ext. A, a copy of the School Certificate of the deceased allegedly submitted at the time of proposal as Ext. B and a copy of voter list vide Ext, C, the letter of repudiation is Ext. D.

6. Both side submitted written argument. We have also heard oral argument of both sides counsels. But at the time of preparing judgment we feel it necessary to examine the relevant school record to testify the school certificate vide Ext. B. Accordingly, school head teacher Rehna Begum Laskar was examined as Court witness. At the outset of the judgment it is very pertinent to mention that the life assured late Fozinul Haque Laskar died due to cardio Respiratory failure on 04-07-2013 i.e. after about 1½ month from the date of commencement of the insurance policy. The said fact is not challenged by the contesting O.Ps. So, it is redundant to appreciate evidence on record to conclude as whether the cause of death is established.

7. Nevertheless the complainant exhibited the death certificate vide Ext. 2 and the said evidence is remained un-rebuttable on the evidence on record. It is also fact that the insurance ombudsman in his judgment dated 26-08-2015 decided that insurance claim has been repudiated mainly on ground of fake KYC and suppression of material fact. It is also mention in the decision that school certificate produce by the insurer during the evidence before the ombudsman was not genuine as per plea of the insurer. But the complainant in her deposition did not agree the opinion and decision of the insurance ombudsman. She deposed that date of birth of the deceased was 01-10-1966. To establish the said date of birth she also exhibited a certificate of the G.P. Vice President vide Ext.7 and on affidavit of the deceased declaring his DOB during his lifetime in connection with correction of the actual age in the voter list and same was declared prior to purchasing of aforementioned insurance policy vide Ext.8. Both the documents remain un-rebuttable on the evidence of record. However, the contesting O.P by adducing evidence of D.W tried to convince this District Forum that the information regarding actual date of birth has been falsely furnished to the proposal Form as 01-10-1966 because the school certificate supporting the DOB vide Ext. B was verified by the insurance company and School Head Master reported that the said school certificate is doubtful because there is no record in the school.

8. To clarify the above fact regarding non-available of the record in the school the Head Teacher of the school has been examined as Court witness. She replied that the document vide Ext. B appeared to be issued on 01-02-1977 by the then Head Teacher T. R. Laskar who is now dead and on search she did not find the relevant years school record in the school almirah. Thus, from her evidence it is crystal clear the Ext. B document cannot be verified from the school record but at the same time it is revealed from the Ext. B that the DOB of the deceased was 01-10-1966. As the school record are not available, so the Ext. B cannot be verified. Hence, the Ld. Advocate of the contesting O.Ps argued that the deceased life assured furnished a false school certificate by furnishing a false DOB but the Ld. Advocate of the complainant argued that the document is genuine and it is not responsibility of the complainant to get verified the said document from the school record. He said further that if school authority failed to trace out the school record of relevant year then the complainant cannot be suffered for the negligence of the school authority to keep the record in the proper manner. Moreover, he submitted that at the time of examination of the Head Teacher, the said witness is very unequivocally replied that she did not give any verification report on the bottom of the Ext. B.

9. However, the Ld. Advocate of the complainant argued again that the life assured furnished the actual DOB in the proposal Form which is supported by Ext.8 affidavit. We have gone through the contents of the Ext.8 affidavit. This is a declaration of the deceased during his life time on 18-02-2013 in connection with correction of the voter list vide Ext. D. We have also gone through the Ext. D. The Ext. D contains name of the deceased Fozinul Haque Laskar and his wife in serial No. 250 & 251 respectively. Their House No.is mention as 241. In that document against the name of the deceased Fozinul Haque Laskar his age has been written as 59 years and against the name of his wife the age is written as 44 years. The said voter list also prepared in the year 2010.Thus, we find justification for making declaration by affidavit vide Ext.8. The Gaon Panchayat (G.P) certificate vide Ext. 7 also supported the fact stated above regarding death of the deceased and other relevant information. The said document including vide Ext. 8 are remain un-rebuttable in the evidence of record. Therefore, the contents of those documents are taken into consideration as reliable and true. Therefore, in our considered view DOB of the deceased Fozinul Haque Laskar is 01-10-1966 and he furnished the right information regarding his DOB in the proposal Form.

10. Thus, we find no justification for repudiation of the death claim made by the complainant. Hence, it is opine that the repudiation of claim on the ground of furnishing false DOB is nothing but a unfair trade practice of the O.Ps. Thus, O.Ps are liable both jointly and severally to pay sum assured of insurance policy of Rs.4,74,070/- and also liable to pay compensation for unfair trade practice of the O.Ps and for mental agony of the complainant of Rs.25,000/- and also liable to pay cost of the proceeding of Rs.2,000/-. The O.Ps are directed to make payment of the total awarded amount within 45 days from today. If failed there to be charged with interest @ 10% P.A. on the awarded amount till realization of the full.

11. With the above, the case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of the judgment to the parties.Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 1st day of September, 2017.