Haryana

StateCommission

A/394/2015

SUNIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 394 of 2015

Date of Institution: 29.04.2015

Date of Decision : 18.10.2016

Sunil Kumar s/o Late Sh. Uday Chand s/o Sh. Badri Ram, R/o Village Garan, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar.

Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

The Branch Manager, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. having its registered office at SCO No. 150-151, 2^nd Floor, Red Square Market, Hisar.                                      

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Sunil Kumar- complainant is in appeal against the order dated 05.03.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short, ‘the District Forum’) vide which the complaint was dismissed.

2.      Complainant filed complaint with allegation that Uday Chand, his father, purchased Life Insurance Policy from SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.-opposite party which commenced from 07.01.2013 with  assured sum of Rs.2,52,000/-.  Uday Chand died on 24.06.2013.  After death of Uday Chand, the complainant lodged claim with SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.-opposite party being nominee but it repudiated the claim.  Hence the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Opposite party contested the complaint by raising plea that the life assured had applied for SBI Life- Flexi Smart Insurance Plan vide proposal form dated 07.01.2013 and deposited an initial amount of Rs.6300/-. He mentioned his annual income as Rs.2,58,700/- from grocery shop and submitted copies of PAN Card and Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13.  However, on investigation it was found that he did not have any grocery shop.  He was issued a Parivar Rojgar Card under Rashtriya Grameen Rojgar Gurantee Yojana, Haryana. He was earning  Rs.179/- per day.  It was stated that he had filed fabricated ITRs and deliberately obtained PAN Card for creating evidence to purchase the policy.  It was also stated that the policy was purchased in violation of Clause 13.5 of the policy.  It was stated that the life assured had purchased six Life Insurance Policies with large amounts in quick succession of two months.  Number of policies and details are given as under:-

Insurance Co.	Policy No.	Date of Commencement	Date of proposal	Sum assured
SBI Life (Policy in dispute)	56031906302	10.01.2013	07.01.2013	2,52,000/-
HDFC Life	15735244	15.01.2013	15.01.2013	1,52,849/-
AVIVA India	ALA3124537	22.01.2013	10.01.2013	30,00,000/-
TATA AIG	CO53867371	29.01.2013	29.01.2013	10,00,000/-
SBI life	09009335805	19.03.2013	01.03.2013	15,00,000/-
Total Insurance Cover				59,04,849/-

 

Denying the claim of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      District Forum after hearing parties dismissed the complaint.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

6.      The only argument raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant was that the insured being holder of PAN card and having filed ITRs was sufficient to prove his income and thus, complainant was entitled to the assured amount being nominee of insured.

7.      Opposite party has placed on the file the copy of card for registration of life assured i.e. Parivar Rojgar Card issued under Rashtriya Grameen Rojgar Gurantee Yojana, 2005 as (Annexure-E) and details of his working days for the years 2011 and 2012 with details of work.  It also contains the details of his working and labour paid.  Opposite party has placed on the file the letter received from the investigator (Annexure-G) DA Associates to prove that Uday Chand life assured had purchased life insurance policies of more than Rs.59 lacs within a period of 2 months beginning 15.01.2013 to 29.03.2013.  When the life assured was only a casual labourer and had been registered under the Parivar Rojgar Card launched by Government under the Rashtriya Grameen Rojgar Guarantee Yojana, certainly the life assured has given the false information in the proposal form (Annexure-A) thereby giving his annual income at Rs.2,58,700/-.  Proposal form is on file as Annexure-‘A’ where in column of employee has mentioned shopkeeper and in column of income has given his income as 2,58,700/- and in column No.11 regarding details of policies held, has scored of, thus certainly life assured concealed information of existing policies and also filed false information of income, and thus mislead the Insurance Company.

8.      In LIC of India & Ors. versus Roshan Lal Gupta Volumer-II (2007) CPJ 194 (NC) Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that the life assured purchased high value policies in a quick succession showing sufficient income by misleading the opposite parties-Insurance Company, so the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.  In view of the above, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. No grounds to interfere.

 

 

Announced 18.10.2016 DK

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President