PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Having failed to convince the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patna, (for short ‘District Forum’) as well as the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bihar, Patna (for short ‘State Commission’) with regard to the repudiation of the insurance claim in respect of the deceased father of the complainant ; this revision petition has been filed by the LIC of India challenging the orders passed by the fora below. Briefly narrated, the facts of the case are that – Shri Ram Swarath Singh, deceased father of the complainant had obtained a Life Insurance Policy on 4.3.1998 for Rs.1 lakh. In the proposal form, the date of birth was given by the life assured as 18.10.1950. In other words, he was about 48 years at the time of obtaining the insurance policy. Soon after the payment of the third premium, the life assured Shri Ram Swarath died on 25.11.1998. The respondent/complainant being the nominee of the life assured, lodged a claim for the insurance amount which, however, was repudiated by the petitioner/opposite party on the ground that the age given by the life assured was found to be grossly under stated. He was not less than 62 years of age at the time of obtaining the policy, while he had indicated his age to be only 48 years. This led the respondent/ complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum, however, did not agree with the objection of the petitioner/ opposite party with regard to the suppression of correct age by the life assured and directed the petitioner to settle the claim of the complainant as admissible under the policy. An appeal preferred by the present petitioner before the State Commission met the same fate. Hence this revision petition before us. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the case. In this case, an insurance cover was offered to the deceased who at the time of taking the policy stated his date of birth to be 18.10.1950. However, when he expired after paying only the third premium and a claim was lodged by his son, the petitioner set in motion an enquiry with regard to the correct age of the life assured. In the process, they found that the son of the life assured and the present respondent/complainant was born on 1.5.1954 as per the records of the School. A letter dated 30.11.2000 to this effect was produced from the Head Master of Govt. High School, Harnaut, Nalanda which is at page 66 of the paper book. There is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the son of the deceased was born on 1.5.1954, obviously the deceased father’s date of birth could not be 18.10.1950. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, while not denying that the date of birth of the complainant is not 1.5.1954 has made a feeble attempt to assail the evidence on the ground that no affidavit from the Head Master of the School to this effect had been filed. We, however, find that apart from this document having been issued by the Head Master from the records maintained in the School in due discharge of his official duty as a Govt. Servant, the same has been filed with an affidavit by the Manager of the petitioner – Corporation. Thus, there was no occasion either for District Forum or the State Commission to dis-believe this important piece of evidence. Under the circumstances, it has to be held that the deceased had not disclosed the correct date of birth and had withheld material information. The petitioner was, therefore, fully justified in repudiating the claim. Both the fora below have erroneously held that just because the doctor of the opposite party accepted the age as indicated by the life assured in the proposal form and the medical certificate issued at the time of his death also stated his age to be 48 years ; therefore, the age as stated by the life assured be taken as correct. They have further wrongly opined that the date of birth of the complainant may be wrong. The State Commission has grossly erred in holding that the letter from the Head Master of the School was not evidence in the eye of law since no affidavit to prove the same had been filed. As already stated above, the letter having been issued in the course of due discharge of his official responsibilities as the Govt. Authority, no affidavit was required to prove the same. It has, therefore, to be held that the life assured had knowingly mis-stated the correct date of his birth. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 734 has held as under : “It is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties know. The insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the Insurance Company and its agents to disclose all material facts in their knowledge since obligation of good faith applies to both equally.” Evidently, there has been a breach of this clear principle of uberrima fides. Further, the complainant has not rebutted the evidence nor has he come forward to state as to what was his other date of birth, if it was not 1.5.1954. Under the circumstances, the order passed by fora below are wholly erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside and the revision petition is allowed with no order as to cost. …………………..………J (R.K. BATTA) (PRESIDING MEMBER) ……………….…………… (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER St/5 |
