Haryana

StateCommission

A/901/2015

VIKAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG LIFE INS. - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT SINGLA

05 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

    

                                             

First Appeal No.           901 of 2015

                                                Date of Institution:       16.10.2015

                                                Date of Decision:         05.05.2016

 

Vikas son of late Sh. Brij Lal, 34 years, resident of Village Gawar, Tehsil and District Hisar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.23-25, Near Dena Bank, Red Square Market, Hisar through its Branch Manager.

                             Respondent-Opposite Party

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                                 

For the Parties:            Sh. Amit Singla, Advocate for the appellant.      

Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          This complainants’ appeal is directed against the order dated February 06^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed. 

2.      Brij Lal (since deceased), father of Vikas-complainant purchased insurance policy under Base Plan and Rider-I.A Flexi Supreme from TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘Insurance Company’) on October 09^th, 2011 vide proposal form (Annexure R-1).  The premium paid was Rs.30,000/-.  Complainant was the nominee.  The sum assured was Rs.9.00 lac. The policy term was twenty years.  Brij Lal died natural death on February 18^th, 2011.  His nominee, that is, complainant filed claim before the Insurance Company, which was repudiated on the ground that before purchasing the insurance policy, Brij Lal was in the category of Below Poverty Line (BPL) and in the proposal form, he mentioned his date of birth November 12^th, 1956 whereas in the Ration Card (Exhibit C-11) his age was mentioned 55 years.  In the Extract from Electoral Roll of Deputy Commission cum District Election Officer, Hisar issued on March 01^st, 2012, his age was mentioned 58 years.  The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      It is not in dispute that insurance policy was issued to Brij Lal on the basis of proposal form (Annexure R-1). The sum assured was Rs.9.00 lacs and the complainant was the nominee. To prove that Brij Lal was under the category of BPL, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has made reference to the Ration Card (Exhibit C-11).  On the top of the Ration Card, it is mentioned BPL-77.  It is not mentioned in the said Ration Card that on which date, it was prepared.   To discard that, learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09 wherein it is mentioned that Brij Lal alongwith his siblings was having agricultural land measuring 207 kanal 5 marla (about 25 acres) in Village Gawar, which shows that he was an agriculturalist.  So, on the basis of mentioning of BPL in the Ration Card, which borne no date of preparation, it cannot be said that Brij Lal was under the category of BPL particularly when he was the owner of agricultural land as per the jamabandi (Annexure A-1).  Not only that, an information was sought by the complainant under the Right to Information Act as to whether Brij Lal falls under the category of BPL or not?  Assistant Food and Supply Officer, Hisar vide his report dated July 28^th, 2015 (Annexure A-2) provided the list of the persons for the years 2010 and 2011, who were under the category of BPL in Village Gawar.  In the said list, name of Brij Lal does not figure.  So, it cannot be said from any angle that Brij Lal was under the category of BPL. 

4.      Now coming to the next contention that Brij Lal suppressed the material facts with regard to his age at the time of submitting proposal form.  In the proposal form, date of birth of Brij Lal is mentioned November 12^th, 1956.  A School Leaving Certificate (Annexure A-3) placed on record by the complainant shows that date of birth of Brij Lal was November 12^th, 1956.  To clinch the issue of date of birth, the complainant has relied upon the best piece of evidence, that is, School Leaving Certificate, which cannot be discarded.  Extract from Electoral Roll (Annexure R-6) issued on March 01^st, 2012, date of birth of Brij Lal was mentioned 58 years as on January 01^st, 2011.  There is no evidence to prove that on what basis age of Brij Lal was mentioned 58 years in comparison to the age mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate. In view of this, Brij Lal had not suppressed any material fact with regard to his age at the time of submitting proposal form.  Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon Lakhbir Kaur and others versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, Revision Petition No.1840 of 2014, NC which is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the present case, Brij Lal did not suppress any material fact from the Insurance Company. 

5.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is allowed.  The Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.9,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.  The Insurance Company is further directed to comply with the direction within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

 

05.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K