BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Tuesday the 23rd day of September, 2008
C.C.No. 40/08
Between:
A. Sankara Sharma, S/o. Late A. Jitendranatha Sastry,
H.No.6/14, Agraharam Street, Owk (post and Mandal) Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager,Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Station Road, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District.
2. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
P.B.No.10, College Road, Kadapa - 516 004.
Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. A.S.V. Javid Ali, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.40/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/s 11 and 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- with 24% interest p.a , Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the case and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainants father A. Jitrendranatha Sastry has taken a policy bearing No.653728985 for Rs.50,000/- and nominated the complainant as nominee. The said policy holder A. Jithendranatha Sastry died on 24-10-2006. On the claim preferred by the complainant the opposite party repudiated the claim on 18-9-2007 stating that the policy holder gave false statement with regard to his age in the proposal form and deduction of age in form Nos. 5096/3260 . But the complainant submits that age of the policy holder column was left blank and it is the opposite parties who filled the columns . Therefore, the repudiation by the opposite parties is not proper hence resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version by opposite party No.2 and adoption memo by opposite party No.1
4. The written version of opposite parties admits the deceased policy holder A. Jithandranath Sastry has taken a policy bearing No.653728985 for Rs.50,000/- on 16-8-2005 and nominated the complainant as his nominee. The complainant informed about the death of the policy holder on 24-10-2006 and submitted claim form . As the claim arose within 1 year 2 months and 12 days investigation was conducted which revealed that the age of the policy holder as per Election Identity Card was 61 years on the date of taking the policy , but the age in the proposal for taking the policy was mentioned as 50 years, thus the policy holder under stated his age by 11 years. Hence ,the policy holder is not eligible for the insurance , and the
opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant on 04-10-07. As the policy holder suppressed material fact of his age which is the basis for entering in to the contract and declared his age as 50 years was false, the contract was declared as null and avoid and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. In support of their case the complainants side relied on Viz.,(1) repudiation letter dt.18.09.07 of the opposite parties to complainant and the opposite party side relied on viz, (1) proposal form (2) policy bond bearing No.653728985 and (3) Election Identity card, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant and opposite party no.2 and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 to B3 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogation exchanged.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service?
7. It is the case of the complainant that his father A.Jithedaranath Sastry has taken a policy bearing No. 653728985 on 22.08.05 for Rs.50,000/- vide Ex.B2 and nominated the complainant as his nominee. The policy holder A.Jithendranath Sastry died on 24.10.06, a claim was put forth by the complainant/ nominee for assured amount, which was repudiated vide Ex.A1 on the ground that the policy holder has suppressed material fact of his age. The opposite parties submitted that the policy holder knowingly suppressed his actual age at the time of taking policy and there is difference in the age of the deceased as given in election identity card (Ex.B3) and in the proposal form (Ex.B1) for taking the policy in Ex.B2. The opposite parties submitted that on submitting of form 3260 5098 by the policy holder the policy under Ex.B2 was issued, the said form 3260, 5098 was counter signed by the agent of opposite parties and Development Officer of opposite parties. The said agent and development officer estimated the apparent of the policy holder and signed the said form and by accepting the said form policy vide Ex.B2 was issued without any hesitation. The premiums for the said policy were realized without any objection and it is on the death of the insured that his grave is being dug to make a postmortem of his policy. All these enquiries should have been made at the very outset, when the policy was issued.
8. It is not the case of the opposite parties that to a person like the insured no policy could have been issued or he was a person who could not have been insured. It is the case of the opposite parties that policy could not have been given to the insured if he disclosed his correct age. To revert back the same argument, the opposite parties to have inquired about the actual age of the insured in his life time itself, actually the opposite parties have enquired through their agent and development officer, who were satisfied and estimated the age of the policy holder as 50 years. Hence, now during the enquiry of this case in this forum the opposite parties submitted that in the election identity card issued to the policy holder vide Ex.B3, the age of the policy holder was mentioned as 50 years as on 01-01-1995 the particulars given in the election identity card has nexus to prove the age of the voters. The effect of election identity card is for registration of a person to vote, where in he is entitled to vote in an election but to prove the age of that person election identity card cannot be an evidence to be relied on. The opposite party having accepted the insurance coverage to the policy holder under the said policy at the relevant time by accepting the age of the policy holder mentioned in the proposal and issued policy bond, now cannot take a stand that the policy holder understated his age by 11 years. Election identity cared issued only for the purpose of voting and for estimation of the age of a person election identity card cannot be relied up on, we have seen the election rolls where the age of the father has been written as 40 years and that of the son as 60 years. In India in villages the age of the country side man is not a relevant factor to be accurate on this and such is the case of the present insured. There is nothing on record to show that who has recorded the age of the policy holder in Ex.B3 election identity card and the particulars mentioned in Ex.B3 cannot is not the evidence to prove that the age of the policy holder as correct. In the proposal form and in the form no.3260, 5098 the age the policy holder is estimated as 50 years and then is nothing on record to disbelieve this age. Therefore the claim of the complainant was not such that which should have been rejected on these formal grounds.
9. The complainant is support of his case relied on the decision of Uttaranchal State Commission between LIC of India Vs Bahadur Singh reported in II 2004 CPJ Pg.74, where in the date of birth of the policy holder in the proposal and kutumba registration is same. Hence, the insurance company was made liable to pay assured amount. But in this present case on hand, the policy holder age and the age mentioned in the election identity card are different. Hence, decision cited by the complainant has no relevancy for its applicability in this case.
10. To sum up, as the opposite parties miserably failed to substantiate their case by filling any cogent relevant material and the complainant certainly remaining entitled to the assured amount under the policy of his father A.Jithendranath Sastry.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the assured amount of Rs.50,000/- under the policy bearing No. 653728985 of A.Jithendranath Sastry with 9% interest for the date of filling of this complaint i.e, 22-2-2008 along with costs of Rs.1,000/- with in one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default, the opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay the supra award amount with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 23rd day of September, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Repudiation letter dated 18-9-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Proposal form.
Ex.B2. Policy bond No.653728985.
Ex.B3. Election Identity Card.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
