DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER

1.       This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 07.11.2013 of the State Commission in complaint no. 58 of 2016, whereby the complaint was allowed and the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurance company’) has been directed to pay to the complainant the sum assured of Rs. 25,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. from 06.12.2016, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The entire amount has been directed to be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which interest at the rate of 10% has to be paid.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance company and learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant) and perused the record.

3.       There is a delay of 58 days in filing the present appeal.  

In the interest of justice and considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4.       It appears from the record that one Mohan Paswan of village Bhagwanpur Ratti, PO Balukaram, District Vaishali had taken an insurance policy from the insurance company for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- on 27.09.2014 and the payment of premium of Rs. 6039/- towards the premium was paid on 25.09.2014. The insured Mohan Pawan died on 20.07.2015 at Muzaffarpur. The complainant, Smt. Sarita Devi, who was the nominee in the insurance policy and wife of Late Mohan Paswan, made a claim for payment of Rs. 25,00,000/-, i.e., the sum assured, which was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that Mohan Paswan had already died long back sometime in the year 2012 – 13 and the policy was taken by an Imposter.

5.       The insurance company relied upon the Rural Housing Report for the financial year 2012 – 13 of Indira Awas Yojana, in which certain amount was sanctioned to one Sarita Devi w/o of Mohan Paswan. According to the learned counsel for the insurance company, no amount of insurance is to be paid to the complainant as the insurance policy was taken by an Imposter. No death certificate of the said Mohan Paswan was ever submitted. Reliance instead was placed on the statements of BLO, Sarpanch and Asha workers, which was not on affidavit.

6.       The submission appear wholly misconceived. Even though the proposal form was filled online but in the addendum the photo of Mohan Paswan was affixed in the presence of the agent. Therefore, the person by the name of Mohan Paswan had taken the insurance policy and had filled up the name of the present complainant as his nominee, who will get the insurance amount. It cannot be denied and in fact there is no denial that the person, who claimed to be Mohan Paswan and in whose favour the insurance policy had been issued, died on 20.07.2015. A death certificate has been filed by the complainant. The only ground, which is being pressed, is that Mohan Paswan died in the year 2012 – 13 and an Imposter had taken the policy.

7.       The insurance company has not been able to substantiate that Sarita Devi mentioned in the Awas Report is the same person who is nominee in the disputed policy. The complainant has filed a death certificate and medical papers of Mohan Paswan, who filled the proposal form on 27.09.2014 and died on 20.07.2015. In a similar case of the same nominee i.e. first appeal no. 1375 of 2018-HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sarita Devi, a concurrent view has been taken.

8.       In this view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order passed by the State Commission. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

9.       The statutory deposit be refunded to the insurance company and the amount deposited before the State Commission be released in favour of the complainant along with accrued interest.