BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 128 of 2018
Date of Institution : 13.04.2018
Date of Decision : 25.02.2020.
Gurpreet son of Nanak Chand, resident of H. No. 325, Ward No.6, Ahlisadar, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, Balaji Towers, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa District Sirsa through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
2. TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office : 14th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 through its Authorized Signatory/ Manager/ Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………… MEMBER
Present: Sh. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.K. Singla, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The present complaint which was earlier dismissed in default on 19.3.2019 has been remitted back to this Forum by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula vide orders dated 11.7.2019 passed in FA No.451 of 2019 titled as Gurpreet Singh vs. Tata AIA Life Insurance Company and another vide which direction has been issued to decide the complaint on merits and accordingly present complaint was ordered to be restored at its original number.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that Sh. Nanak Chand son of Sh. Mohi Ram father of complainant got insured his life with opposite parties’ company after medical checkup and making payment of premium of Rs.50,000/-. The ops issued insurance policy No. C196958862 with date of commencement as 9.3.2017 and its date of maturity is 9.3.2029 and the sum assured was Rs.5,50,000/-. The name of complainant is recorded in the aforesaid policy as nominee of his father. It is further averred that unfortunately Nanak Chand father of complainant died on 10.8.2017 and after his death complainant visited to the office of ops and requested to settle the claim of death of his father under the aforesaid policy and he submitted relevant documents and completed all the formalities as per instructions of ops. It was assured to the complainant that death sum assured of Rs.5,50,000/- alongwith other benefits and interest will be paid to the complainant in short period. It is further averred that complainant visited to the office of ops several times but on every visit, the op no.1 delayed the matter on false excuses and did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. That complainant got served legal notice to the ops on 24.1.2018 but to no effect but to no effect rather ops threatened the complainant to involve him in a false case and now two days back, the ops have flatly refused to admit the genuine claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that true facts of the present case are that upon being approached by one Nanak Kamboj and as per the information supplied by him, the op company had issued the policy bearing No. C196958862 for a sum assured of Rs.1,32,000/- on 4.4.2017 having date of commencement as 9.3.2017 considering all the information supplied by the life assured true and correct in its entirety. That at the time of processing of the proposal form and as per information supplied by LA, he has represented himself to be medically fit and fine and was not suffering from any disease and had nominated the complainant as his nominee. It is further submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that since as on date insurance fraud is perpetuating on a high pace and many gangs throughout State of Haryana started procuring the policies in connivance with the insurance agents upon a persons who were either on dead bed or otherwise not entitle to avail insurance cover in any way and all the insurance companies working within the India with a view to prevent themselves from the hands of such like persons have started conducting post verification enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness of the declarations made by the proposer and that so happened in the present case. In the present case, the ops’ company after issuance of policy in question in favour of Nanak Kamboj has conducted post verification enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness of the declaration as made by father of complainant and during such course it has been revealed to the ops’ company that father of complainant by playing fraud has got procured the policy in question and has concealed true health status and has made misrepresentation in this regard declaring himself fit and fine and ops’ company after being apprised itself about such an astonishing fact during the course of post verification enquiry does not found it feasible to continue with the policy contract and as such decided to cancel the policy contract by treating the policy contract null and void. Accordingly, the ops’ company treated the policy in question null and void vide its letter dated 8.8.2017 and said letter duly served upon father of complainant during his life time and he never ever raised any concern nor has objected the action of the ops behind cancellation of the policy and after discontinuation of the policy no concluded contract subsist between the father of complainant and ops’ company and on the date of death of father of complainant no liability of any kind tilts upon the ops’ company in respect of the policy in question as no policy contract subsisted on the date of death of father of complainant. However, the complainant under some malafide disguise after death of his father filed the present complaint claiming the sum assured value of the policy which otherwise was not in-force on the date of death of father of complainant. It is further submitted that insurance is a contract between both the parties and is governed by Insurance Act, 1938 and both the parties to the contract were bound to provide true information to the other party and it is the ops’ company who considering the information contained in the proposal form true had issued the policy in question. Had the life assured appraised the ops about his true health status at the time of entering into the proposal form, then the ops would not have issued the policy in favour of life assured with such a heavy sum assured. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished affidavit of his brother Manpreet general power of attorney holder of complainant in which he has deposed and reiterated the averments of complainant made in the complaint. The complainant has also placed on record copy of general power of attorney Ex.C1, copy of proposal form Ex.C2, copy of first premium receipt Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 15.3.2017 Ex.C4, copy of policy schedule and copy of life insurance premium certificate Ex.C5, copy of death certificate Ex.C6, copy of legal notice Ex.C7, copies of postal receipts Ex.C8, Ex.C9, copies of acknowledgments Ex.C10, Ex.C11 and copy of letter dated 8.8.2017 Ex.C12, copy of adhar card of complainant Ex.C13, copy of voter card Ex.C14 and copy of terms and conditions of policy Ex.C15. On the other hand, opposite parties have furnished affidavit of Sh. Harsimran Singh, Manager Legal as Ex.R1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the written statement.
7. Admittedly, father of complainant namely Nanak Chand had purchased a policy bearing No.C196958862 from the opposite parties which was effective from 9.3.2017 and the maturity date was 9.3.2029 and death sum assured was Rs.5,50,000/-. As per allegations of complainant, father of complainant Nanak Chand expired on 10.8.2017 i.e. during subsistence of the policy and the complainant being nominee of his father is legally entitled to the death sum assured of Rs.5,50,000/-. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the opposite parties that after issuance of the policy in question in favour of Nanak Chand they have conducted post verification enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness of the declaration as made by father of complainant and during such course it has been revealed to the ops’ company that father of complainant by playing fraud has got procured the policy in question and father of complainant at the time of applying for the policy has concealed the true health status and has made misrepresentation in this regard wherein declaring himself fit and fine and the ops’ company after being apprised about such an astonishing fact during the course of post verification enquiry does not found it feasible to continue with the policy contract and as such decided to cancel the policy contract by treating the policy contract null and void. Accordingly the ops’ company treated the policy in question null and void vide its letter dated 8.8.2017 and the said letter was duly served upon father of complainant during his life and he never raised any objection qua cancellation of the policy. On the date of death of Nanak Chand, the policy was not in force.
8. The perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that complainant himself has relied upon letter of cancellation of policy dated 8.8.2017 Ex.C12 by which it was conveyed to insured Nanak Chand that insurance policy in question was fraudulently obtained by concealing the true health status of the insured at the time of proposal. The issuance of the insurance policy is result of material non-disclosure and concealment with a clear intent to cheat the company and the above policy stands cancelled since inception and there will be no liability on them. It is apparently clear from this letter that this letter was duly served upon Nanak Chand (now deceased) during his life time and he had not raised any objection qua this cancellation of policy.
9. The perusal of complaint reveals that complainant has not uttered a single word qua issuance of this letter in his complaint nor he has challenged this cancellation letter in his complaint. Further, Manpreet brother of complainant and his general power of attorney holder has not uttered even a single word in his affidavit qua challenging of cancellation letter meaning thereby that deceased Nanak Chand was satisfied with the cancellation letter and thereafter present complainant remained silent qua issuance and receipt of cancellation letter. Since it is proved on record that on the date of death of Nanak Chand, the insurance policy had already been cancelled and was not in force, as such complainant does not appear to be entitled for any claim.
10. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:25.02.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
