State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurmeet Kaur & Ors. vs Lic Of India on 18 December, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.128 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 13.02.2008.
Date of Decision: 18.12.2011.
1. Gurmeet Kaur widow of Kuldeep Singh s/o Darshan Singh, Resident of
243, Rana Garden, Maqbool Pura Wala Road, Amritsar.
2. Kirandeep Kaur d/o Kuldeep Singh, through natural guardian mother
Gurmeet Kaur, R/o 243, Rana Garden, Maqbool Pura Wala Road,
Amritsar.
3. Prabdeep Kaur d/o Kuldeep Singh through natural guardian mother
Gurmeet Kaur, R/o 243, Rana Garden, Maqbool Pura Wala Road,
Amritsar.
4. Jashan Preet s/o Kuldeep Singh through natural guardian mother
Gurmeet Kaur, R/o 243, Rana Garden, Maqbool Pura Wala Road,
Amritsar.
.....Appellants.
Versus
1. LIC of India through its Chairman, Northern Zonal Office, Jeewan
Bharti, P.B. 630, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.
2. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Amritsar Division, Jeewan Parkash,
Amritsar.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
17.12.2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Bijender Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Sh. Deepak Arora, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Earlier, this appeal was decided by this Commission vide order 22.01.2010 and the respondents filed an application for recalling the order dated 22.01.2010 which was dismissed by this Commission vide order First Appeal No.128 of 2008 2 29.03.2010. The respondents went in revision and the Hon'ble National Commission vide its order dated 4th March, 2011, remitted back the case to this Commission, with the direction to decide it a fresh in accordance with law, after hearing the counsel for the parties.
2. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur & others, appellants/complainants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum").
3. Facts in brief are that the appellants filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents, making averments that Sh. Kuldeep Singh purchased life insurance policy bearing no.471390975 on 26.07.2004 for Rs.10.00 lacs and he paid three quarterly installments for Rs.4650/- each. His wife Gurmeet Kaur was the nominee. The policy was accepted by the respondents. Said Kuldeep Singh was a temporary employee of SGPC and he died on 25.04.2006 and the doctor opined that the cause of death was abrasion on the toe on the base of the dorsolateral side and electric shock and viscera was sent to chemical examiner, but nothing was detected in the viscera and the Additional Session Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 29.11.2005, held that death was neither due to injury on the toe, nor it was caused by administering any poisonous substance. Thus, the said Kuldeep Singh died a natural death and even if it is believed that as per postmortem report, the death was due to electrocution and injury on the toe, even then the appellants are entitled to get the amount of the policy.
4. Senior Divisional Manager of LIC, Amritsar repudiated the claim of the appellants on the ground that the policy is void abnitio, as the material information was withheld from the LIC regarding the service of Kuldeep Singh deceased, duration of service and income at the time of affecting insurance with the LIC and the insurance was not lawful. The information given by the deceased was false, as neither he was permanent employee of SGPC, nor First Appeal No.128 of 2008 3 had income of Rs.1.00 lac per annum, as mentioned in the proposal dated 26.07.2004 and obtained the policy for heavy amount by concealing material facts. The repudiation of the claim was illegal. Said Kuldeep Singh was a permanent employee of SGPC and was in service from 1990 till his death. He obtained the insurance for Rs.10.00 lacs, by calculating his salary and other sources of income from dairy etc. and if he was not having the means to pay Rs.18,400/- as premium per annum, then he would not have purchased the insurance policy of Rs.10.00 lacs. The contract is not void or void abnitio, but it was legal and the respondents have not mentioned as to who impersonated the insured and for what reasons and how medical examination was wrong.
5. Sh. Kuldeep Singh deceased appeared before the agent of the respondents and narrated the true facts and signed the proposal and undertook the medical tests in the presence of the respondents by the medical officer of the respondents under the rules. The proposal was accepted and there was no fraudulent intention on the part of said Kuldeep Singh, nor there was any impersonation. The deceased did not conceal any fact about his income and health and the respondents are deficient in rendering service, and prayed that the respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs along with interest @ 24% p.a. or double accident claim if the death was due to electrocution and Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for mental harassment and agony.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable, as the deceased life assured Sh. Kuldeep Singh willfully and fraudulently withheld the correct and material information regarding his service, duration of service and income at the time of taking the policy bearing no.471390975 and the object of the insurance was not lawful. He was not a permanent employee of Shri Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), but was on daily wages of Rs.70/- and his annual income was not Rs.1.00 lac as mentioned in the proposal dated 26.07.2004. The policy of Rs.10.00 lacs was taken with the First Appeal No.128 of 2008 4 connivance of the beneficiary. The insurance was obtained by way of impersonation and he did not sign the 'special medical report' and got all the special testes conducted in absentia and this fact has been proved by the report of forensic expert and the repudiation is legal and valid. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The appellants are not consumers. The appellants have not sued the respondents through Zonal Manager, LIC of India, as required under regulation no.41 of the Life Insurance of India Regulation, 1959 made u/s 49 sub section 2 of the LIC of India Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The appellants are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the complaint.
7. Questions of facts and law are involved in this case, because as per the investigation got conducted by the respondents, it has been established that the appellant-Gurmeet Kaur had illicit relations with one Satnam Singh s/o Gura Singh and in connivance with him, she electrocuted her husband and murdered him. She was charge-sheeted u/s 302 IPC for murdering her husband, but she was acquitted as the police was not aware of the heavy insurance of the deceased life assured and the motive of the murder could not be proved. The appellant-Gurmeet Kaur murdered the deceased life assured in order to get the 'double accident benefit' of the sum assured. The elaborate evidence is required which is not possible before the District Forum in a summary trial and civil court is competent. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. All the Class-I legal heirs of the deceased are competent to file the complaint. The claim under the LIC policy cannot be termed as compensation' as envisaged u/s 14
(i)(b) of the Act and the LIC was neither negligent nor deficient in rendering service. No interest is payable under the terms and conditions of the policy.
8. On merits, it was admitted that the deceased Kuldeep Singh life assured purchased the life insurance policy on 26.07.2004 for Rs.10.00 lacs and paid three quarterly installments of Rs.4650/- each and his wife Gurmeet Kaur, appellant no.1 was the nominee. It was further admitted that the life First Appeal No.128 of 2008 5 assured died on 25.04.2006 and as per the postmortem report and the chemical analysis report, he died due to electrocution. The appellant herself mentioned in the claim papers the cause of death as electrocution and now she is making false statement that her husband died due to natural death. The repudiation of the claim was also admitted. The respondents have evidence and reasons to believe that the insurance on the life of the deceased Kuldeep Singh was obtained by way of impersonation, which is proved from the detailed report of handwriting and forensic expert Jassy Anand & Associates. Similar pleas as taken in the preliminary objections were repeated and denying all allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
10. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that extremely complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this case and the same can be adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and not by the Consumer Court in summary proceedings, and dismissed the complaint, leaving the appellants free to avail remedy before the civil court of competent jurisdiction.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.12.2007, the appellants have come up in appeal.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased life assured took the policy for Rs.10.00 lacs and paid three quarterly premiums of Rs.4650/- each and unfortunately, he died on 25.04.2006 and the claim lodged by the appellants was repudiated on the grounds that the material facts were suppressed and there was First Appeal No.128 of 2008 6 impersonation, as someone else appeared for the medical tests. It has been contended that proposal form Ex.R19 was signed by deceased Kuldeep Singh and he was medically examined by Dr. Suresh Aggarwal, who was on the penal of the respondents and he certified that the proposer has signed after admitting that all the answers to questions no.10 and onwards of this form, have been correctly recorded. The agent of the respondents also signed and in this proposal form, he has shown his income as Rs.1.00 lac per annum and he could pay the premium. The repudiation letter is Ex.R16 . Ex.R20 is the medical examiner's confidential report which was also signed by the deceased life assured and Dr. Suresh Aggarwal. The appellant no.1 vide judgment Ex.C8 was acquitted in the criminal case and from the documents Ex.C17, Ex.C18 and Ex.C15, the income of the deceased is proved and he has not suppressed any fact regarding his income.
14. It has been further contended that the order of the District Forum for relegating the appellants to the civil court is against the law and the Forum as well as this Commission is competent to decide the controversy between the parties. The repudiation was illegal and the appellants are entitled to claim the insurance amount, compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.
15. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that on the very outset, the respondents in their reply have pleaded that the complicated questions of facts and law are involved and the Forum or this Commission cannot decide it in summary manner. The respondents have examined the expert to prove that the proposal form was signed by some other person, who also underwent the medical tests and not the deceased life assured and there is no rebuttal to the same, as the appellants have not examined any expert. The said life assured was, in fact, murdered by appellant no.1 but due to benefit of doubt, she was acquitted. The cause of death was electric shock and the motive was to get benefits of the policy. The deceased was only a 'Sewadar/daily wager', getting Rs.70/- First Appeal No.128 of 2008 7 per day and the document Ex.C17 in no way proves the income, as there is no evidence that the deceased was doing dairy business or was selling milk. No affidavit of the person, who purchased milk, is on record. The deceased was not capable of paying the premium for the sum assured of Rs.10.00 lacs and the claim was rightly repudiated on the grounds of suppression of material facts and impersonation. The deceased gave incorrect information regarding his income and in the proposal form, only word 'Sewadar' was used and no other source of income was mentioned and later on, the story of selling milk has been concocted, just to claim the benefits of the insurance. The order of the District Forum is legal and the civil court is only competent to decide the complicated questions of facts and law in this case and the appeal without any merit may be dismissed.
16. We have considered the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully scanned the entire documents and other material placed on the file.
17. Admittedly, the deceased life assured Kuldeep Singh husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellants no.2 to 4 (hereinafter called "the DLA") took policy for Rs.10.00 lacs on 26.07.2004 and paid three quarterly installments of Rs.4650/- each. Receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 as well as Ex.R3 to Ex.R5 have been produced by both the parties. The DLA died on 25.04.2005 and claim was lodged by the appellant-Gurmeet Kaur with the respondents and the respondents vide letter dated 15.09.2006 Ex.R16, repudiated the claim of appellant no.1 on the grounds that the DLA Kuldeep Singh was employee on daily wages of Rs.70/- and his annual income was not Rs.1.00 lac, as mentioned by him in the proposal for insurance dated 26.07.2004 in connivance with beneficiary. His insurance was obtained by way of impersonation and he did not sign the 'special medical report' and got all the special tests conducted in absentia and this fact has been proved by the report of Forensic Expert.
First Appeal No.128 of 2008 8
18. Copy of proposal form is Ex.R19 and in this, the DLA has clearly mentioned that he is working as 'Sewadar' for the last 17 years and his annual income is Rs.1.00 lac and he is serving in Shiromani Committee. The proposal form was duly signed by Kuldeep Singh as well as Sh. Shamsher Singh, agent, having code no.10244-113-LIC, Amritsar. The said agent also signed the declaration to the effect that he has fully explained the above questions to the proposer and he has truthfully recorded the answers given by the proposer. Thereafter, Dr. Suresh Aggarwal signed, certifying that the proposer has signed in his presence and the answers to questions no.10 and onward have been correctly recorded. Ex.R20 is the 'medical examiner's confidential report', wherein the DLA signed and his signatures were attested by Dr. Suresh Aggarwal, who is an approved Cardiologist, LIC of India. The respondents have examined Jassy Anand & Associates, Finger Prints and Handwriting Expert, who tendered his affidavit Ex.R36 and gave the report Ex.R39 and he gave the opinion that the 'disputed signatures on medical examiner's confidential report dated 26.07.2004, letter of cardiogram report dated 26.07.2004, on special biochemical test report dated 26.07.2004, special medical report of haemogram dated 26.07.2004 and the medical report of routine urine analysis dated 26.07.2004', are the result of copied forgery. The report of the expert cannot be taken to be correct on the face of it, because the agent of the respondents and the medical officer on the penal of the respondents have given the declaration and the certificate that the DLA signed in their presence and answered the questions. The report of the handwriting expert itself is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of the appellants and at this stage, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that someone else impersonated instead of the DLA Kuldeep Singh. It was for the respondents, their agent and the medical officer, to ensure that the person, who is obtaining life insurance, is the same who is signing the proposal form and had undergone all the medical tests. Therefore, the First Appeal No.128 of 2008 9 contention of the respondents that the DLA was impersonified or someone else was medically examined, is not sustainable.
19. Similarly, the plea taken now that the deceased was unable to pay the premium as he was only a 'Sewadar', is not tenable at this stage, because it was for the officials of the respondents, their agent, to see at the time of filing of the proposal form as to whether the man, who is filling the proposal form, is capable of paying the premium and moreover, the DLA has already paid the three quarterly premiums of Rs.4650/- each before his death and there is nothing on record to show that the DLA committed any default in payment of the premium or the premium was paid belatedly.
20. The appellant no.1 has come forward with the fresh plea that she has been acquitted by the criminal court vide judgment Ex.C8 and she is entitled to the claim.
21. We have considered this plea of the appellant-Gurmeet Kaur, but we are not inclined to give any weightage to this plea, because she was acquitted on the ground of 'benefit of doubt', but the findings of the criminal court are not binding and it cannot be said that the murder of Kuldeep Singh was not committed. Although, appellant-Gurmeet Kaur has been acquitted by giving 'benefit of doubt', yet there is overwhelming evidence and material on record, to show that appellant-Gurmeet Kaur has played a major role in the killing of her husband.
22. Investigator appointed by the respondents conducted the thorough investigation and also recorded the statement of Smt. Jaswant Kaur, Sarpanch, village Manochahal Ex.R22, wherein she has stated that appellant- Gurmeet Kaur had illicit relations with one Satnam Singh @ Satta of village Shahbazpur. She further stated that both of them in the intervening night of 24/25.04.2005 electrocuted him. FIR no.117 of 2005 for the offences punishable u/s 302/34 IPC was registered against the appellant as well as her paramour Satnam Singh @ Satta at the instance of Sh. Darshan Singh father of the DLA. The news was also published in the newspapers, cutting of which First Appeal No.128 of 2008 10 have been placed on record, wherein the allegations were made against appellant-Gurmeet Kaur that she along with her paramour Satnam Singh killed her husband by electrocution and she was arrested immediately. Thus, there is overwhelming evidence and material to say that appellant-Gurmeet Kaur was hand-in-glove with her paramour Satnam Singh and she abetted the commission of murder and tried to prove it as a natural death by electrocution. A murder is disqualified u/s 25 of the Hindu Succession Act from inheriting the property of the person murdered. Therefore, appellant- Gurmeet Kaur is debarred and disqualified from claiming any benefits accruing on the death of the DLA.
23. However, the appellants Kirandeep Kaur, Prabdeep Kaur daughters and Jashan Preet son of the DLA as well as Smt. Amarjit Kaur mother of the DLA of Kuldeep Singh are entitled to claim the benefits accruing after the death of Kuldeep Singh from the policy which he purchased, if mother was alive on 25.04.2005 and if not, then the entire amount shall be payable in equal shares to appellants no.2 to 4.
24. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is allowed in favour of appellants/complainants no.2 to 4 only and appellants no.2 to 4 and Smt. Amarjit Kaur, mother of the deceased Kuldeep Singh are held entitled to claim the amount of insurance in equal shares, i.e. 1/4th share each and if Smt. Amarjit Kaur was not alive on 25.04.2005, then the said insurance amount shall be paid in equal shares to appellants no.2 to 4 and in case, the mother of deceased Kuldeep Singh died after 25.04.2005, then her share should devolve as per provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, but not upon appellant-Gurmeet Kaur, who stands debarred from claiming any benefit. The respondents are directed to pay the insurance claim along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of repudiation till payment in the above manner. Since, appellants no.2 to 4 are minors, their share be deposited in a nationalized bank in the fixed deposit First Appeal No.128 of 2008 11 receipts till appellants no.2 to 4 attain majority and after attaining majority, they shall be entitled to get the entire amount as per their shares,
25. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 06.12.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
26. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member December 18, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)