Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/430/2017

Mrs. Rajni Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Tajender K. Joshi

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/430/2017
Date of Institution	:	31/05/2017
Date of Decision	:	06/08/2018

 

Mrs. Rajni Mahajan w/o late Sh. Ruchit Mahajan resident of House No.1010, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh 160018.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 109, Bank Square, Sector 17B, Chandigarh 160017 through its Branch Manager.

2.     State Bank of India (formerly known as State Bank of Patiala), Sector 8, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Krishna Kant, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. J.K. Babbar, Counsel for OP-2

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of allegations are, complainant is a widow of deceased, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan who had taken insurance policy from OP-1. OP-2 had sanctioned home loan of Rs.15,50,000/-in favour of deceased husband of the complainant and OP-1 issued certificate of insurance providing coverage upto the amount of loan remaining outstanding till the loan is totally paid. It is the case, deceased husband of the complainant on 6.8.2014 had purchased 1/3^rd share of residential house No.1160, Old Plot No.147-P, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh from one Sh. Vipan Kumar Sharma.  The deceased, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan, for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance, approached OP-2 who granted in-principle approval. OP-2 insisted, for disbursement of loan, it is must to get the insurance coverage and on the joint insistence of both the OPs, husband of the complainant signed the necessary documents. Its terms and conditions were never explained and on 8.10.2014, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan had died. He was suffering from cancer. Insurance claim was lodged, but, it was repudiated by OP-1 as the deceased had not disclosed material facts on point of suffering from cancer and made false declaration of good health. It is the case, deceased Sh. Ruchit Mahajan was suffering from tongue cancer, was under treatment and these facts were known to OP-2 and paper formalities were done in the presence of Sh.Vikram Mahajan.  In nutshell, the case is, insurer i.e. OP-1 had knowledge of Sh. Ruchit Mahajan being a patient of cancer on the date of issuance of policy, but, even then they insured his life and now they cannot repudiate the claim on this ground. Till the date of filing of the consumer complaint, complainant had paid Rs.4,73,500/- to OP-2. Maintained, OPs employed unfair trade practice and were deficient in rendering proper service. Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing OP-1 to satisfy the entire outstanding loan, repay amount of Rs.4,73,500/-alongwith interest, compensation and costs of litigation.
2.         OP-1 filed its written reply and in nutshell its case is, there was concealment of facts on the part of deceased, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan. The insurer i.e. OP-1 had acted in utmost good faith and the life assured furnished false declaration of being in good health and did not disclose of being a cancer patient. On his declaration, policy was issued and the life assured had died on 8.10.2014 i.e. just after one month and 26 days from the date of issuance of policy and, therefore, claim was rightly repudiated. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 had also furnished its separate reply claiming, there was no deficiency in service. Loan was sanctioned and it is liable to be recovered. Maintained, OP-2 has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party in the present consumer complaint.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.         The crux of the pleadings of the parties. i.e. to say the averments of the complainant is, even on the date of issuance of the policy, her deceased husband, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan, was a patient of tongue cancer. It is also the case, he had died of cancer in PGI, Chandigarh while under treatment i.e. just within one month and 26 days from the date of issuance of the policy.
7.         The claim of the complainant is, though this disease was known to the insurer/OP-1, even then it proceeded with issuance of the policy.  This plea, having regard to the natural course of event, does not appear to be convincing and believable as the days of a cancer patient are numbered and no insurance company, in ordinary course, would opt to issue the policy knowing this fact and to increase the burden of payment of amount of Rs.15,50,000/- to the complainant. The allegation, terms and conditions were not apprised, denied in toto by the OPs in their written statement and the same are also corroborated by way of affidavit.
8.         We shall have a glance to the declaration form which was submitted by the deceased, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan on 6.8.2014 before OP-1.  It was signed by him, as is reflected from the photocopy of the declaration form, and it was signed in presence of Sh. Ranjit Puri, RACPC, SBOP, Chd. This shows, it was witnessed by Sh. Ranjit Puri.  Hence, Sh. Ranjit Puri was a material witness to the declaration form and the complainant had not produced on record the affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Puri who had witnessed the declaration having been made by the deceased,
   Sh. Ruchit Mahajan on point of fact that he was on 6.8.2014 in sound mental and physical heath. There is also a query in the declaration form with regard to the surgical operation, hospitalization and treatment of deceased. On the questionnaires having been raised, the deceased, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan had replied in the negative i.e. No as under the box ‘No’, he had ticked it.  This shows, in the declaration form submitted by Sh. Ruchit Mahajan, he claimed himself to be enjoying sound mental and physical health and had concealed, i.e. to say  hidden the fatal ailment i.e. tongue cancer. Now this version is not believable that the terms and conditions were not read over and explained to him and on this point of fact the version of brother of the deceased, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan i.e. Sh. Vikram Mahajan is not liable to be believed as he nowhere figured at the time when the declaration form was filled in by the deceased, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan.    At that juncture, one Sh. Ranjit Puri, an official of the State Bank of Patiala (OP-2) was a witness to the execution of the declaration form.  His affidavit had not been procured to cement and corroborate the version that terms and conditions of the policy were not read over and explained to the deceased, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan. It is nevertheless not the case, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan was illiterate and unable to read and write English in which the terms and conditions were scribed i.e. to say printed. It looks to us, the declaration form which is at page 43 of the paper book was signed by deceased, Sh. Ruchit Mahajan in English in routine flow which is also indicative of the fact of being a qualified person and could not have been hoodwinked by the officers/agents of OP-1.
9.         No allegation of any sort with regard to deficiency in service was made out against OP-2 i.e. the banker.
10.         In view of the above discussion, we land to a concrete and firm conclusion that the consumer complaint preferred by the complainant is meritless and we proceed to dismiss the same, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/08/2018	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President