Punjab

StateCommission

FA/740/2013

Rishab Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, Tata Capital Services Limited & others - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Verma/Anoop Singh

20 May 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,    PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.740 of 2013

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 08.07.2013

                                                          Date of Decision:  20.05.2016

 

Rishab Arora aged 26 years heir/ son of Late Sh. Surinder Arora, M/s Arora Manufacturing Company, G.T Road, Bye Pass, Near Pathankot Chowk, Jalandhar, Punjab, R/o 73, Modern Colony, Jalandhar City.

                                                                         Appellant/Complainant      

                 Versus

 

1.      The Chairman, Tata Capital Services Limited, One Forbes, Dr.         V.B Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai 400 001.

 

2.      The Chairman, Tata Capital Services Ltd, DGP House, Fourth         Floor, Old Prabha Devi Road, Mumbai 400 025.

 

3.      The Branch Head, Tata Capital Services Ltd., Shanti Towers,           Ground Floor, SCO 37, Opposite Tehsil Complex, PUDA     Complex, Opp. DC Office, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar Punjab.

 

4.      The Chairman, Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd., 6th      Floor, Peninsula Towers, Peninsula Corporate Park,       Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400 013.

 

5.      The Chairman, Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd.,   (Registered and Corporate Office) Delhi B Wing, Second Floor,       Orchard Avenue, Hiranandani, Business Park, Powai, Mumbai    400 076.

 

6.      The Branch Head, Tata AIA Life Insurance/Company Ltd, Opp.       Tehsil Complex, In PUDA Complex, 2nd Floor, Ladowali Road,          Jalandhar Punjab.

 

                                                               Respondents/Opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Jalandhar

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.J.S Gill, Member

Present:-

          For appellant                      : Sh.Ashish Verma, Advocate

          For respondents no.1-3      : Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate

          For respondents no.4-6      : Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against order dated 30.05.2013 of District Consumer Forum Jalandhar dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The appellant of this appeal is the complainant in the complaint and respondents of this appeal are the opposite parties in the complaint and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

 2.     The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that his father late Sh. Surinder Arora took first personal loan from OP no.1 and 3 on 14.10.2010 and repaid the same as per agreed terms. OPs no.1 and 3 sanctioned top up loan with loan account no.3228659, customer no.7032873 and financed amount of Rs.17,60,322/- duly insured from associate company i.e. OPs no.4 to 6. Part of the above said loan amount i.e. Rs.10.32,491/- was transferred in complainant's father account on 07.11.2011 in account no.10168401928 at State Bank of India Tanda Road Jalandhar, which was less than the loan-sanctioned amount. The loan was automatically got insured from OP no.4 to 6. On 30.11.2011, father of the complainant met with natural death. The loan amount was insured with OP no.4 to 6 under policy no.UGC L 000004. The policy insurer was Tata Capital Ltd and it was drawn in favour of complainant's father late Sh.Surinder Arora, which was to come into effect on the date of sanction of loan to borrower/complainant's father. The complainant lodged claim with OPs on 20.01.2012 on account of sudden and natural death of his father, but OPs no.4 to 6 rejected the insurance claim. OPs no.4 to 6 undertook that in case of death of Surinder Arora, the insurer would liquidate the outstanding PL Business Loan Top UP amount, which was taken from Tata Capital Services Ltd. The rejection of the insurance claim is unjustified and arbitrary by OPs no.4 to 6. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against OPs directing them to pay Rs.18,29,938.07 and not token sum of Rs.9516.13 as compensation. The complainant further prayed for Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      OPs no.1 to 3 were set exparte before District Forum Jalandhar, vide order dated 10.12.2012.

4.      Upon notice, OP no.4 to 6 appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. No cause of action arose to complainant against OPs no.4 to 6 to file the complaint. OPs no.4 to 6 received application from Sh. Surinder Arora for insurance of his life and submitted proposal form on 02.11.2011. He obtained personal loan of Rs.17,50,000/- against the sanctioned loan of Rs.17,50,000/-. Surinder Arora was, thus, insured with OPs no.4 to 6. Suridner Arora not only signed the proposal form in English but also signed the declaration form. Life assured has not disclosed in the proposal form to OPs no.4 to 6 while taking policy that he was suffering from alcoholic liver disease and hepatitis and received treatment from Patel Hospital Jalandhar under U No.219963. He rather submitted in the proposal form and declaration that he had not suffered from any disorder of hepatitis or liver condition. He submitted false declaration, while taking insurance policy contained in the proposal form. He who signs a document is presumed that he read document properly and understood it. OPs no.4  to 6 prayed for dismissal of the claim on the ground that 'contract of insurance' is based on utmost good faith and Surinder Arora life assured submitted false statement regarding not suffering from any disorder of hepatitis or liver disease. OPs no.4 to 6 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rahul Dhanotia authorized representative of TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Jalandhar dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 30.05.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Jalandhar dated 30.05.2013, the complainant now present appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the evidence on the record of the case.

7.      The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the ground that life assured Surinder Arora had been proved to a patient of hepatitis or liver disorder being alcoholic before taking the policy and he deliberately submitted wrong particulars to OPs no.4 to 6, while taking insurance policy. The District Forum observed that on account of deliberate wrong particulars furnished by life assured to OPs no.4 to 6, he obtained policy by keeping the insurer in darkness about his health condition. The District Forum observed that had the correct facts been disclosed, OPs no.4 to 6 might not have insured him. We have examined material evidence on the record to settle the controversy in this case between the parties. Ex.C-1 is status report of the policy in the name of Surinder Arora. Ex.C-2 is statement of account of Surinder Arora life assured.

8.      To refute this evidence, OPs relied upon affidavit of Sh. Suresh Dhanotia authorized representative of TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd Ex.RW-1/A. Ex.R-1 is authority letter. Ex.R-2 is proposal form filled in by Surinder Arora life assured in this case. Surinder Arora assured gave declaration that the particulars furnished by him are correct. He stated that he never suffered from any disorder of hepatitis or liver condition. He positively stated in proposal form Ex.R-2 that he never suffered from hepatitis or liver disorder. He also swore declaration, which is part of the proposal form stating that particulars furnished by him are correct. OPs brought on record the treatment received by the complainant from Patel Hospital Jalandhar, vide U-219963. It is recorded in the record of the Patel Hospital on 26.07.2011 that Surinder Arora was a patient of hepatitis or alcoholic disorder. He was advised conservative treatment and endoscopy use was also recorded on it. This record of Patel Hospital of Surinder Arora s/o Sohan Lal, resident of House No.73, Modern Colony, Jalandhar and Mobile No.987600017 is connected to Surinder Arora life assured. Even in the proposal form Ex.R-2, the address of Surinder Arora is the same as given in the patient record of Patel Hospital in U- 219963. It is, thus, proved by Patel Hospital patient record of life assured that he suffered from alcoholic disorder being hepatitis patient on 26.07.2011. He received treatment for liver disorder on 26.07.2011. Proposal form is Ex.R-2 filled in by him on 02.11.2011 after 26.07.2011. We can safely presume that he was aware of his liver disorder before taking the insurance policy in this case. He suffered the contrary statement in the proposal form Ex.R-2 positively stating that he never suffered from any disorder of hepatitis or liver alcoholic. His statement furnished in the proposal form Ex.R-1 and declaration submitted therewith has been found to be false one. The Contract of Insurance is based on UMBERRIMA FIDES. Whosoever comes forward to taking contract of insurance must disclose correct particulars, so that the insurance company could apply its mind, whether to grant the contract in the given circumstances of the case or not. Life assured obtained the contract of insurance by keeping the insurer in dark about the condition of his health. Apex Court has held in "P.C Chacko and another versus Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India and others", reported in 2008(1) RCR Civil 127 that if statement given by the insured on a material matter is wrong and he has suppressed the material fact, which he was bound to disclose and he was knowing at the time of making statement that it was false, then the 'Contract of Insurance' is rendered voidable. The Apex Court has also examined this point in "Satwant Kaur Sandhu versus New India Assurance Company," reported in 2009 (8) SCC 316 that deceased did not disclose the fact of ailment, while taking the policy, which was within her knowledge. Death of deceased after seven months of taking policy - insurance companies justified in repudiating the claim. Material fact means any fact which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determining whether to accept the risk or not. We find that life assured Surinder Arora took policy on 02.11.2011  and he died on 30.11.2011 after a short time thereafter. In the circumstances of the case, since he was proved to be alcoholic with liver ailment and hepatitis prior to taking insurance policy and as such OPs are justified in repudiating the contract of insurance.

9.      The District Forum judiciously applied its mind to the controversy of the case and came to the correct conclusion in dismissing the complaint of the complainant by justifying the repudiation of insurance claim. We find no ground to disagree with the findings of the District Forum under challenge in this case. The order of the District Forum is affirmed in this appeal.

10.    As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed.

11.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.05.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                            (J.S GILL)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

May 20,  2016                                                             

(ravi)