BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 108 of 2016
Date of Institution : 5.5.2016
Date of Decision : 18.9.2017.
Ramniwas son of Inder Singh, resident of village Kharati Khera, Tehsil & Distt. Fatehabad.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Tata AIA Life Insurance company limited, 14th floor, Tower A, peninsula Business Park Senapatti Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013.
IInd address, Tata AIA life insurance company limited, I Think Lodha Techno Campus, off Pokharan Road no.2, Behind TCS Close to Eastern Express Highway Thane (W)- 400607 through its Director/ Authorized person.
2. Tata AIA life insurance company Branch Office Sirsa Sangwan Chowk Near Sharma Petrol Pump Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. P.S. Sokhal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.K. Singla, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that father of the complainant namely Inder Singh got his life insured with the opposite parties by purchasing the policy No.C677503367 for sum assured of Rs.4,00,000/-. At that time, he was hale and hearty and was not having any kind of disease at the time of purchasing the policy or prior to purchasing of the policy and there was no history of any disease. The life insured did not take any medicine or treatment for any kind of disease/ ailment. It is further averred that during the life period, the life assured himself was entitled to get the benefit of the policy and after his death, the nominee is entitled to get the benefits of the policy. Unfortunately the life assured Inder Singh died on 10.8.2013 due to heart attack during the subsistence of the policy period and as per terms and condition of the policy, the nominee is entitled to get claim benefit of the policy. That complainant is the nominee of the life assured. The complainant intimated the ops regarding the death of life assured Inder Singh and also submitted the death claim form alongwith original policy and other documents required for death claim with the ops and the officials of the ops assured the complainant that death claim benefit will be given within a short period but no amount has been given to him. That now complainant received a letter dated 2.4.2015 vide which the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by stating that “Inder Singh had expired on 10.2.2013 i.e. one month prior to the date on which he is alleged to have signed the application for insurance. We are, therefore, satisfied that the aforesaid application for insurance was the result of impersonation of Mr. Inder Singh made with intent to defraud the company. The said claim is therefore rejected.” The said version of ops is wrong, false and concocted only to repudiate the genuine claim of complainant as the life assured Inder Singh died on 10.8.2013. That the ops have humiliated and harassed the complainant by repudiating the genujne claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per the information provided and supplied in the proposal form, one Inder Singh had applied for an insurance policy with the ops and the ops company considering the information supplied by the life assured and considering the person original had issued the policy in question. The ops company on dated 30.12.2014 were in receipt of death claim form from the complainant and upon perusal of the same, it has been revealed that the life assured passed away on 10.8.2013 as per the death certificate submitted by the complainant alongwith the death claim intimation form. However, as the death of the life assured occurred within a very short time as per the death certificate, the investigations were ordered to be conducted by the higher management of the company and accordingly the matter was investigated by the Investigator of the company and during the course of investigation many astonishing facts came into the knowledge of the ops wherein it has been proved that the policy in question is outcome of the collusion between financial consultant with that of the complainant and the same is result of impersonation as the life assured had already expired prior to the purchase of the policy. That during the course of investigation, it has been revealed to the ops that the death certificate so submitted by the complainant is forged one and the life assured much prior to the purchase of policy i.e. on 10.2.2013 had passed away. During course of investigation, it came into knowledge of the ops that the alleged fake death certificate stands issued on the basis of sole declaration made by the complainant. The ops after receipt of investigation report coupled with documentary evidence did not find the claim of complainant as acceptable and accordingly the same stands repudiated vide letter dated 2.4.2015 under due intimation to the complainant and had also disbursed FYP amounting of Rs.16045/- towards full and final settlement of all the claims under the policy and the complainant without having any protest had accepted the above said amount. Now the complainant is debarred from seeking any further benefits under the policy. That apart from the same, the complainant in collusion with different financial agents of the different companies had procured many policies and out of them, the complainant had procured two policies from HDFC Standard life also and out of those two policies one policy has been procured prior to taking of the present policy but the complainant malafidely had not reflected the same while entering into proposal form qua the present policy. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, repudiation letter dated 2.4.2015 Ex.C2 and copy of death certificate of Inder Singh Ex.C3. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Harsimran Singh, Legal Manager Ex.RW1/A and copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of the record reveal that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents i.e. repudiation letter dated 2.4.2015 Ex.C2 and copy of death certificate as Ex.C3. On the other hand, opposite parties have furnished affidavit of Sh. Harsimran Singh, Legal Manager as Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8.
6. The record further reveal that the complainant has filed this complaint with the specific averments that father of the complainant namely Inder Singh had got his life insured for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- vide insurance policy No.C677503367 and the said Inder Singh died on 10.8.2013 during the validity of the insurance policy and claim was lodged and the same was declined vide letter dated 2.4.2015. On the other hand, there is specific defence plea of the opposite parties that it is a case of impersonation and the said policy was obtained by complainant in connivance with the agent of the company as Inder Singh had already died on 10.2.2013 before the inception of this policy.
7. The perusal of the evidence of complainant reveal that complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the contents of his complaint but has not uttered a single word rebutting the defence plea of the opposite parties. The complainant never deposed that father of complainant did not die on 10.2.2013 rather he died on 10.8.2013. The perusal of Ex.C1 further reveals that he has also deposed that his father was not suffering from any disease and on 10.8.2013 due to heart attack he died. He has not deposed that his father was referred to any hospital at Ratia or he suffered a heart attack at Ratia and his death was recorded in the record of Municipal Committee, Ratia. Though, the complainant has placed on record the death certificate Ex.C3 which has been issued by the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Ratia, but no corroborative evidence has been led by the complainant in order to prove his plea that his father died due to heart attack at Ratia rather it finds mention in the complaint that his father was resident of village Kharati Khera where he allegedly suffered heart attack and died. So, complainant has badly failed to prove that his father died at Ratia and his death entry was recorded at Ratia.
8. On the other hand, the opposite parties have furnished affidavit of Sh. Harsimran, Legal Manager, Tata AIA Life Insurance Company, Chandigarh who has deposed and reiterated the defence plea contained in the written reply filed by ops and also placed on record Ex.R1 the copy of proposal form in which the address of the deceased Inder Singh is mentioned as village Kharati Khera and bears signature of Inder Singh in Hindi. The opposite parties have also placed on record Ex.R2, the copy of repudiation letter by which claim was repudiated and the policy was declared void and refund of the premium amount of Rs.18045/- was made by transferring amount in the account of the complainant. The opposite parties have also placed on record the copy of report of the Investigator as Ex.R3 in which he has reported that Inder Singh had already died on 10.2.2013 before inception of the policy in question on 23.3.2013 and the deceased did not die on 10.8.2013. The opposite parties have also placed on record copy of relevant entry of the register of Aanganwari Worker obtained through RTI wherein date of death of Inder son of Ram Parsad is shown as 10.2.2013. The opposite parties have also placed on record copies of statements of Aanganwari Worker and Sarpanch of the village in which the date of death of Inder Singh is mentioned as 10.2.2013.
9. So, from the evidence of the opposite parties, it is proved on record that deceased Inder Singh died on 10.2.2013 and not on 10.8.2013. Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant failed to explain when the death of Inder Singh took place in village Kharati Khera, how entry of his death was recorded at Ratia with Municipal committee. Therefore, it is proved on record that opposite parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
10. In view of above, the present complaint of the complainant fails and same is hereby dismissed without any 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. President,
Dated:18.09.2017. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
