Undisputedly, Brij Lal, father of complainant Wazir Beniwal vide his proposal form dated 4.10.2010 (Ex.C-5) applied for Life Insurance Policy for insured amount of Rs.9,00,000/-(Rs.Nine lac). The insurance policy was issued from back date i.e. w.e.f. 13.2.2010. Complainant Wazir Beniwal was his nominee. Brij Lal died on 18.2.2011. Complainant filed insurance claim which was repudiated vide impugned repudiation letter dated 10.4.2012(Ex.C-4). Averring the repudiation as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, complainant Wazir Beniwal has filed this complaint on 25.11.2013 for a direction to the opposite party for payment of insured amount of Rs.9 lacs, with up to date interest, besides damages for his harassment, mental agony etc.  and litigation expenses.

2.       The opposite party has contested the case of the complainant by filing its reply. It has pleaded for the legality and validity of the repudiation; inter alia on the ground that insurance was obtained by deceased Brij lal in violation of principles of  ‘utmost good faith’ i.e. of  ‘Uberrama fides’. That at the time of applying for the policy, life assured was of 58 years in age, but in view to get high sum assured, he melafidely  mentioned his date of birth as 12.11.1956 i.e.  only 53 years in age and so grossly understated his age. That insured Brij Lal was a person of below poverty line category. He was having BPL ration card,  but  with a view to cause wrongful financial loss to the insurance company and wrongful financial  gain to his nominee, he falsely mentioned his annual agricultural  income as of Rs.2,00,000/- for getting insurance policy of insured sum of Rs.9 lacs. That he had not only obtained this insurance policy,  but had also obtained  another insurance policy of the same amount,  in which his other son  viz Vikas was his nominee. That he had also died within a very short period of obtaining the Life Insurance Policies and so claim of the complainant was early claim being within 6 months of the date of enforcement to the policy. It is also pleaded that while  repudiation the claim of the complainant,  he was advised that in case he has any grievances, then he may approach Insurance Ombudsman. That instead of  exhausting that remedy he has straightway filed this complaint.

3.       In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C-1 his own supporting affidavit,  Ex.C-2 copy of death certificate; Ex.C-3 copy of school certificate issued by Head Master,  that as per school record date of birth of Brij lal is 12.11.1956; Ex.C-4 copy of repudiation letter dated 10.4.2012; Ex.C-5 copy of insurance  proposal form;  Ex.C-6 copy of his legal notice dated 12.3.2012. Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 copies of statements of  villagers  and  of the Sarpanch respectively, regarding natural death of Brij Lal,  Ex.C-9 copy of blank Bank Cheque, Ex.C-10 copy of voter list and Ex.C-11 copy of BPL Ration Card of the deceased.

4.       In reply thereto, the opposite party has placed on record Annexure-R1 copy of insurance proposal form i.e. duplicate of Ex.C-5; Annexure R-2 copy of repudiation letter dated 10.4.2012 i.e. duplicate of Ex.C-4; Annexure R-3 copy of  BPL Ration Card of the deceased i.e. duplicate of Ex.C-11, Ex.R-4 copy of death certificate i.e. duplicate of  Ex.C-2; Annexure R-5 and Annexure R-6 copies of  electoral rolls dated 1.3.2012 regarding   age of Brij Lal as 58 years, Annexure R-7 copy of claim form, Annexure R-8 copy of investigator’s report and  Annexure R-9 supporting affidavit of Sh.Harsimran Singh, Assistant Manager of the Company.

5.       We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for parties. We are of considered opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and it deserves dismissal. It is amply established on record that Brij Lal had obtained the insurance policy,  in violation of principle of “Utmost food faith” i.e.  of  ‘Uberrama Fides’. First of all,  it is note worthy that even as per the documentary evidence of the complainant, deceased Brij Lal was having BPL Ration Card ( Ex. C-11 or Annexure R-3). But in the proposal form, he  had mentioned his Annual  agricultural Income as of Rs.2,00,000/- for obtaining this insurance in question for huge amount of Rs.9,00,000/-. There is no proof to substantiate his said alleged annual agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/-.  When he was a person of below poverty line category and having BPL ration card, then it  is highly improbable that he would be having that much huge annual agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/-.

6.       In this regard,  it is further note worthy that he had filled proposal form on 4.10.2010,  but died on 18.2.2011 i. e. within about 4 months of  the filling of  the proposal form. In this regard, it is further note worthy that while filling proposal form on 4.10.2010, he had obtained this insurance policy in back date on 13.2.2010. These are highly doubtful suspicious circumstances.

7.       Further it is note worthy that he had also obtained  another insurance policy dated 11.2.2011 for an equal insured amount of Rs.9,00,000/-,  but in  favour of his another son namely Vikas. He did not mention for obtaining this  insurance policy,  while obtaining said second insurance policy of same huge amount. Therefore it is very clear that deceased had obtained insurance policies in violation of principle of  Uberrama Fides.

8.       Moreover as per Distt. Electoral Roll dated 1.3.2012 Annexure R-5,  Brij lal was 58 years in age,  but while obtaining the issuance policy, he had mentioned his date of birth as 12.11.1956  i.e. only about 53/54 years in age. Of course complainant has placed on record Ex.C-3 copy of school certificate issued by Head Master regarding date of  birth of Brij Lal as 12.11.1956 in school record,  but this copy of certificate,  as such,  is not safe to rely upon,  in absence of original school record, especially when there is also no supporting affidavit of Head Master.

9.       It is thus  proved that the  deceased had also understated his age,  which points towards the correctness of the case of the  opposite party, that it was in order to get higher sum assured.

10.      Therefore, it is very clear that repudiation of the claim of the complainant,  cannot be said as unjustified. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, this complaint is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs.