Sh. Uday Chand, since deceased, father of complainant Sunil Kumar obtained Life Insurance Policy from SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. from the opposite party, for insured amount of Rs.2,52,000/-, effective from 10.1.2013,  with quarterly premium of  Rs.6300/-each. Complainant Sunil Kumar was his nominee.  Sh. Udey Chand  died on 24.6.2013 i.e. just after 5 months and 14 days of obtaining the policy. Complainant lodged his insurance claim,  with the opposite party, but it was repudiated vide letter dated 12.9.2013(Annexure C-3); hence this complaint, filed on 22.1.2014, for insured amount of Rs.2,52,000/-,  with upto date interest, besides claiming damages for harassment and litigation expenses.

2.       Opposite party filed its reply and contested the case of the complainant; pleading  that life Insurance policy, in question,  was obtained by the deceased,  by playing a fraud as the Insurance policy was obtained,  on the information given in the proposal form that he was having annual income of Rs.1,58,700/- by running a grocery shop; whereas in fact  he was only a daily wage earner, earning approximately only  Rs.179/- per day. In this regard he  was issued ‘Parivar Rozgar card’,  under ‘Rashtriya Grameen Rozgar Guaranteee Yojana’  Haryana (Annexure-E). That he had applied and obtained,  permanent account number(PAN) only  in December,2012 and in quick succession, just prior to apply,  for this insurance policy, filed e income tax return only to create false income proof,  for procuring high sum assured insurance policy. That not only this, he had also so subsequently obtained following other  life Insurance Policies,  in quick succession (Annexure-G); showing the fraud played by him with other insurance companies as well. The details there of are as under:

3.       In order to make out his case, the  complainant has placed on record  Annexure C-1 copy of insurance policy in question; Annexure C-2 copy of death certificate of Uday Chand; Annexure C-3 copy of impugned repudiation letter dated 12.9.2013; Annexures C-4 & 5 his own supporting affidavits.

4.       In reply, thereto, opposite party has placed on record Ex.RW1/A supporting affidavit of Ms Gurpreet Kaur,  authorized representative of the opposite party; Annexure-A copy of insurance form; Annexure-B copy of acceptance letter of the  opposite party; Annexure-C copy of PAN card of the deceased; Annexure-D copy of e-mail Income Tax Return; Annexure-E copy of  Parivar Rojagar card; Annexure-F copy of impugned repudiation letter dated 12.9.2013; Annexure-G copy of information,  regarding other life Insurance policies  of the deceased.

 5.      We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for parties. We are of the considered opinion that there is absolutely  no merit in this complaint and so it deserves dismissals. Insurance of contract of the case in hand was  vitiated due to violation of principles of ‘Utmost Good Faith’  on the part of the insured.

6.         There is no dispute that deceased Uday Chand  had obtained insurance policy in question on the information that he was having annual income of  Rs.1,58,700/- by running a grocery shop;  but in fact,  he was not running  any grocery shop,  nor was having that much earning. On the other hand, admittedly  he was having ‘Parivar Rozgar card’(Annexure-E) issued under ‘Rashtriya Grameen Rozgar Guaranteee Yojana’ Haryana. Thereby he was entitled only for  daily wages  of Rs.179/-.  In this regard,  case of the opposite party , also gets full supported  corroboration from  copy of aforesaid card Annexure-E as well as by supporting affidavit of  its  authorized representative; whereas on the other hand , complainant could not even place on record, anything including his own supporting affidavit,  to mention the particulars or of the location of alleged  shop of his father since deceased. He also could not produce, even  relevant record of any  income of the deceased, from any shop or from any other source.  On the other hand, it is also very clear that the deceased,  had obtained PAN Card only in  December,2012 and  had submitted E-ITR Return 2011-12.  It was in quick succession. It may be  only in order to get the insurance policy in question.

7.       In this regard, it is also  note worthy that insured Uday Chand had died just after 5 months and 14 days of obtaining  the insurance policy. He not only obtained this insurance policy,  but had  also so obtained number of the insurance policies,  of huge amounts,  including of Rs.30 lacs; 15 lacs and 10 lacs.  All the insurance policies were obtained during the period from 10.1.2013 t0 19.3.2013,i.e.  just within  about two months.

8.           Further it is note worthy that said Uday Chand,   had no insurance policy,  prior to the insurance policy in question i.e. prior to 10.1.2013.No reason whatsoever,  is coming forth, as to why  so many insurance policies  in quick succession,  were obtained and that too for those  huge amounts,  just before this death.  Necessary inference is certainly against the deceased and in favour of the opposite party, to prove the fraud and violation of principle of good faith in the matter of insurance.

 9.      Learned counsel for the complainant has  however contended that aforesaid all the insurance policies,  are subsequent to the policy in question. It was the first insurance policy  therefore  all those subsequent policies  have no retrospective effect upon this insurance policy in question. We do not find any merit in this contention. For getting this insurance policy, as well as, all other insurance policies, said  act of fraud  was committed as these were obtained by manipulating the  things by giving false information. He was a daily wager. He manipulated PAN Card and E-mail Income Tax Return , only subsequent to December,2012 Whereas even this first insurance policy,  was obtained on 10.1.2013, Even by said  E- income tax return, he did not pay even a single penny as tax.

10.          There is nothing to prove or to presume that Uday Chand had sufficient income,  for obtaining so many insurance policies of  huge amounts within a short period from 10.1.2013 to 19.3.2013,  when he himself died on 24.6.2013. This insurance policy, as well as, all said other policies suffer from the principle of violation of  ‘Utmost good faith’on the part of the deceased. Therefore  repudiation of the claim of the complainant cannot be said as unjustified or deficiency of  service on the  part of the opposite party.  Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs.          

Announced.                                                         

Dated:05.03.2015

                                                                        President,

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Hisar

                                                                          Member/05.03.2015