The instant case was started on the basis of a written complaint filed by one Sk. Sahen of Vill. Mardangi under the P.S. Harishchandrapur, District Malda before this Forum and the said petition was registered as Complaint Case No. 06/2015.
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant’s uncle Tufani S/o. Yakub of Mandangi P.O. Ramshimul, P.S. Harishchandrapur, Dist.-Malda purchased a policy viz. Bajaj Allianz Invest Gain Platinum under the Policy No. 0277749870 and the date of commencement of the policy was 18.08.2012.
It has been further stated in the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant was nominated as a nominee of the said policy and the said fact has been reflected in the policy deed which was issued by the opposite party after receiving the premium of the said policy. Subsequently, complainant’s uncle Tufani died on 22.11.2012 for which the complainant filed an application before the O.P. for claim of death benefit to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) along with other benefits. The O.P. after receiving the claim application repudiated the claim of the complainant on 28.04.2014 without a cogent reason and without any basis. After receiving the repudiation letter the complainant rushed to the office of the O.P. to know the actual reason for repudiation but the O.Ps demanded bribe for settlement of the claim. But the complainant refused to make any payment as demanded by the O.Ps. The further case of the complainant is that the O.P. repudiated the claim by unfair means. There was deficiency of service on the part of O.P. The cause of action arose on the date of death of the complainant’s uncle and date of repudiation of the claim on 28.04.2014. The complainant has prayed for 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) as regards to the death benefit of the policy and Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Only) for compensation on the ground of deficiency of service and Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) for the litigation cost.
The petition has been contested by the O.Ps. O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.P. Nos.1 to 4 contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. Further case is that the complainant has not come to the Forum with a clean hand. The definite defence case is that the policy was obtained by suppressing the real fact as regard to the age of the deceased Tufani. As there was a suppression of real fact the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Hence, the petition is rejected with cost.
In order to prove the case the complainant himself was examined as P.W.-1 and he was cross-examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand one witness Kamrul Hoque was examined who happens to be the Head Master of the Primary School of the O.P.W.-1 and he was cross-examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the O.P.
Now the point for determination whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that the complainant is a nominee of the said policy and he is entitled to get relief as prayed for. On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 argued that the policy was obtained by the suppressing the fact as regard to the age of the deceased Tufani. Now let us consider whether there was any suppression of real fact as regard to the age of the deceased Tufani at the time of purchasing the policy.
The complainant in his written argument has submitted that by filing the documents which have been marked Exts. 1 and 2 it is found that the date of birth of Tufani is recorded as 04.06.1963 in the admission register and Head Master issued the certificate. In this case Head Master Kamrul Hoque was examined by the O.P.W.-1 and affidavit was filed on behalf of Kamrul Hoque by which it is found that the Transfer Certificate in the name of Tufani on 01.08.2012 is genuine and that certificate was issued on the basis of admission register. The O.P. called for the admission register. On perusal of the admission register the relevant portion of the admission register has been marked Ext.-B. On perusal of the relevant entry it is found that the name of the Tufani was written after using the whitener and the date of birth was written 04.06.1963 after using the whitener. So on perusal of the admission register it is found that there was a manipulation as regard to the age of Tufani. It is not understood why the said Head Master Mr. Kamrul Hoque issued a certificate which has been marked Ext.-A by which he stated that he did not issue any certificate by which the date of birth was recorded as 04.06.1963 and such certificate is fake. It is not understood that the same person by an affidavit stated that he issued the certificate. On the other hand he has stated that the certificate issued was false. So the evidence of O.P.W.-1 as regards to the issuance of School Leaving Certificate of Tufani is not at all believable. We should have to consider the certificate on the basis of the Admission Register. On the perusal of the admission register it is found that there was manipulation as regards to the date of birth of the deceased Iaqub. The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submits that the Government Authority like BDO, Panchayet Pradhan have issued the certificate as regards to the date of birth of the deceased Iaqub. The certificate of BDO Harischandrapur Block 1 was issued on the basis of the certificate granted by the Pradhan of Rashidabad Gram Panchayet. But as and when we find an old document i.e. the admission register in which it is found that the date of birth of Tufani is manipulated. So the argument raised by the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant that the date of birth of Tufani was 04.06.1963 was not at all believable. As such the argument raised by the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. that there was a suppression of material fact as regards to the date of birth of Tufani is quite acceptable. Moreover, it is not understood why Tufani nominated the complainant as and when his family members are present like her wife, son and daughters as appears from the investigation report of the Insurance Company. It is not also understood why the dead body of Tufani was not post mortemmed as and when the death of Tufani was not normal So it is also raises a strong suspicion to the genuinity of the case. So considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
C.F. paid is correct.
Hence, ordered that
the case be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.
