This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 24-1-2008 in the presence of  Sri. G.Govardhan, Advocate for Complainant , and in the presence of  Sri.K.P.Satya Narayana Rao, Advocate for the opposite parties ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Smt..V.Vijaya Rekha, Member )

1.         This complaint is filed under section 12(1)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;

2.       The mother of the complainant by name Bathula Annapuranamma ,w/o Ankulaiah R/o.Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Town, obtained policy No.687019898 on 25-3-2004, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties and the mother of the complainant died on 25-5-2005 and after her death the complainant as a nominee, claimed the policy amount due under the above policy and the opposite party No-1 repudiated the claim on the ground of mentioning of under age in the Proposal Form dated 24-3-2004 and intimated the same to the complainant through a letter dated 24-2-2006  and after receipt of the repudiation letter the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 12-12-2006 for payment of the policy amount and after receiving the reply from  the opposite parties the complainant approached the forum by claiming the policy amount from the opposite parties on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  The complainant claimed the policy amount together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death of the policy holder till the realisation  and costs. 

3.         Along with the complaint the complainant  filed affidavit and also filed   Xerox copies of  documents i.e.,(i) policy copy vide it’s No.687019898(ii) death certificate of the deceased/policy holder, dated 25-6-2005 (iii) Letter dated 24-2-2006 addressed by the opposite party No-1.(iv) legal notice dated 12-12-2006. (v)letter dated 20-12-2006 addressed by the opposite party No-1 to the complainant .

4.         After receipt of notice from the Forum the opposite parties appeared  before the forum through their counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations leveled  against them.

5.         The opposite parties admitted the issuance of the policy infavour of the mother of the complainant, denied the other allegations regarding the deficiency of service on their part and the opposite party mainly stick on the age mentioned in the Proposal Form and basing on that, they stated that they repudiated the claim on the ground of under age, mentioned in the Proposal Form dated 24-3-2004.  The opposite party mentioned in their counter that the material information  was withheld with regard to the age of  the deceased/policy holder and basing on the age mentioned in the Proposal Form and  as per the age proofs of the complainant it shows that the  deceased/policy holder gave birth to the complainant at the age of 7 years and further the opposite parties contended that because of mentioning of under age the policy was issued  without any medical reports required, and contended that the insurance contract  rests on utmost good faith and non-mentioning of correct age in the Proposal Form  caused  repudiation of the claim and prayed to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency in services rendered by them.

6.         Along with the counter the opposite parties filed (i) Attested copy voter identity card of the complainant (ii) Date of birth certificate dated 1-2-2006 of the complainant (iii) Declaration of age issued by notary,  dated 24-3-2004 (iv) Proposal Form, dated 24-3-2004.

7.         In view of the above submission made by both the parties  now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not.

8.         As seen from the averments  of the complaint and counter there is no dispute regarding the issuance of policy  in favour of mother of the complainant and the main dispute to be resolved  in this case is whether the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties  basing on the  alleged under age of the policy holder is justifiable or not ?  It is the case of the complainant that they mentioned the correct age in the Proposal Form  and there is no withholding of any material information as alleged by the opposite parties and the opposite parties mainly relied on the age declared by the deceased/ policy holder in the Proposal Form.   The perusal of  the Proposal Form reveals that the age of the policy holder was mentioned as 49 years and in the policy copy, which was issued by the opposite parties  the date of birth of the deceased /policy holder was  clearly mentioned as 1-7-1955 and the notary affidavit submitted by the policy holder also reveals the same and the  age of the nominee i.e., the complainant was mentioned as  34 years  in the Proposal Form and even as per the Proposal Form   there is a difference of 15 years between the age of the nominee and the deceased/policy holder.  The opposite parties after obtaining  the Proposal  Form accepted the same and  issued the policy in the name of the policy holder, now after claiming the policy amount  after the death of the policy holder, come up with a new plea and raised objection regarding the under age of the deceased/policy holder and repudiated the claim of the complainant.  The opposite parties by filing the age proofs  of the nominee i.e., the complainant contends how the policy holder gave birth to the nominee at the age of 7 years and twisting the facts in their favour and further contended that the policy holder by mentioning 49 years, avoided required medical checkups by withholding material information regarding the age of the policy holder, in this aspect the opposite parties even though alleged  under age, did not filed any proof in respect of  under age of the deceased/policy holder.  Moreover the opposite parties who raised this contention, did not verified and enquired the age at the time of obtaining the policy, now at this juncture the opposite parties cannot agitate the age of the deceased/policy holder , moreover it is not the case of the opposite parties that the policy holder died with any ill-health or disease and in the absence   of any  such proof it cannot be said by mentioning under age  and by withholding material information, she avoided the required medical checkups in this regard.  From the perusal of the contentions of both the parties the Proposal Form and the notary affidavit the age of the policy holder is one and the same, apart from the mentioning of age the date of birth of the policy holder was also clearly mentioned as  1-7-1955 and the date of birth also clarifies that the age of the policy holder as 49 years at the time of obtaining  the policy and as such this Forum feels that there is no withholding of material information regarding the age of the policy holder and as such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant by holding that the opposite parties are liable to  pay  the amount due under the policy and the complainant is entitled to get the amount due under the above policy with accrued benefits if any.   

9.         In the result the CC is allowed, directed the opposite parties to pay the policy amount  of Rs. 1,00,000/- with  accrued benefits if any due under the policy No.687019898 to the complainant together with interest @ 7.5%  from the date of repudiation i.e., 24-2-2006 till the date of realization.  There is no order as to costs.    

    Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 5th  day of   February, 2008.

                                                                            President         Member             Member

                                                                              District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

                                                                               President        Member             Member   

                                                                             District Consumers Forum, Khammam