BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.: 303 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 18.11.2015
Date of order: 02.02.2017.
1.Smt.Suresh wife of late Sh.Shamsher son of Deva Singh 2.Amarjeet 3.Baljeet sons and 4.Manisha daughter of late Sh.Shamsher Singh all residents of village Samain, Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.
….. Complainants.
Versus
- TATA AIA, Life Insurance Company Ltd. Registered & Corporate Office Address: 14th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapat Bapat Marg, lower Parel, Mumbai, 400013.
- Branch Manager, TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Limited Huda complex, Plot No.DSS-9, Ground and Ist Floor, Narwana, District Jind (Haryana).
- Parmeela, Agent, TATA AIA Life Insurance company Limited wife of Rajinder resident of village Samain, Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad State Haryana.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
BEFORE: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Shri Rajesh Gill, Advocate for the complainants.
Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for the OP Nos.1 & 2.
OP No.3 exparte
ORDER:
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs).
2. In short, the case of the complainants is that the husband of complainant No.1 during his lifetime had obtained an insurance policy (TATA AIA Life Insurance Money Maxima 110N109V01) bearing No.C-676616310 dated 04.08.2014 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and he had paid annual premium to the tune of Rs.15401/- through OP No.3. The claim No. of the policy is NW15121518. It has been further averred that the life insured had died on 03.10.2015 and had not appointed nominee in the said insurance policy, therefore, the complainants being his legal heirs are entitled to get the insured sum from the OPs but they have not honoured the claim despite visiting their office and its agent many a times. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant No.1 has tendered her affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Ram Niwas Ex.CW2/A, affdavit of complainant No.2 as Ex.CW3/A, affidavit of Subash, numberber as Ex.CW4/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.
3. Upon notice, OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing joint reply. It has been further submitted that the life assured had applied for a policy with the OP Nos.1 & 2 and had affixed ration card in support of his age proof with the proposal form. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 on believing the information and documents supplied by the life assured had issued the policy in question to him for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on dated 06.08.2014. It has been further submitted that the life assured had tried to establish his age as 32 years by showing his date of birth as 22.01.1980 but during the course of investigation, when the claim on account of death of life assured was lodged, it came to the notice of the insurance company that the actual age of the life assured was 57 years. It has been further submitted that the life assured had nominated one Roshni, who had died 25 years back, as his wife whereas the complainant No.1 has claimed herself as his wife. The present policy had been obtained by submitting a forged ration card as the life assured had appended his name above the name of his father but forgot to change the name of his wife; therefore, he had nominated his mother as his wife. It has been further submitted that from the policy in question had been obtained by playing fraud and even there are three different dates of death of life assured because in death certificate the date of death is mention as 30.04.2015 and as per death claim intimation form, the life assured passed away on 30.05.2015 and as per present complaint the life assured had died on 03.10.2015. The complainants are not entitled for any claim, however, an amount of Rs.2446.87/- had already been disbursed to the complainant No.1 as full and final settlement for all her claims. Other allegations have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No.3 did not appear before this Forum despite issuance of registered cover, therefore, she was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.12.2015. In evidence, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Harsimran Singh as Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R9.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the material available on the case file we are of the considered opinion that the complainants have not been to able to prove their case by leading cogent and reliable evidence rather the learned counsel for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 has been able to prove on the case file that the life assured had obtained the policy in question by concealing the material facts from the insurance company with a malafide intention to deceive it. In the proposal form (Annexure R1) the deceased life assured has mentioned his date of birth as 22.01.1980. However, a perusal of the Aadhar Card (Annexure R7) reveals that he was born on 01.01.1957. In view of the above fact, it is well proved that at the time of filing of proposal form the DLA was 57 years old and not 34 years as claimed by him. Moreover, in support of his proof of age the DLA had submitted Ration Card. However, as per report of Food and Safety Department (Annexure R4), it is evident that tempering has been made in the name and age of the member. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the proposal form the DLA has made Smt.Roshni as his nominee being his wife. However, on perusal of the record, it is evident that Smt.Roshni was mother of the DLA and she had already died years back. Now being wife Smt.Suresho Devi complainant No.1 had submitted claim form wherein she has shown her age as 33 years old whereas as per identity card issued by Election Commission, Hayrana, she is 57 years old.
6. In view of the position as discussed above, it is well proved that the complainants have approached this Forum with uncleaned hands and have failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is also evident that the DLA submitted forged/tempered document (Ration Card) for obtaining the insurance policy and thereby concealed the material fact regarding his age with the intention to deceive the OPs. The present case of the OPs is squarely covered by the judgments titled as titled as P.C.Chacko and another Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others 2008 (1) ALL MR 408 (SC) and Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 2009 (9) JT 82. Therefore, the present complaint is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 02.02.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President
(Ansuya Bishnoi) Distt.Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
