State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balwinder Singh S/O Piara Singh vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 11 May, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1136 of 2004
Date of Institution : 17.09.2004
Date of decision : 11 .05.2010
Balwinder Singh s/o Piara Singh, resident of Village Rattanheri, Tehsil
Samana, Distt. Patiala.
...Appellant
Versus
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Branch Manager,
Samana, Distt. Patiala.
2. The Divisional Manager, Northern Zone Divisional Office, Life Insurance
Corporation of India, Post Box No.42, Jeewan Parkash, Sector 17-B,
Chandigarh.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 26.5.2004
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.B.P.S.Virk, Advocate.
For the respondents : Sh.Deepak Arora, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Gian Kaur mother of Balwinder Singh appellant had taken life insurance policy from the respondents for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the period from 28.11.1994 to 28.11.2009 under table 74.15. Her nominee was her husband Piara Singh. Lateron she named Balwinder Singh appellant as her nominee.
2. It was further pleaded that the life assured died on 23.6.2002. The insurance claim was lodged by the appellant. It was repudiated by the respondents vide letter dated 11.3.2003. Alleging deficiency in service on the part on respondents, the appellant filed a complaint against respondents in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum") for insurance claim. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
First Appeal No.1136 of 2004 2
3. The respondents filed written reply. It was not denied that Smt.Gian Kaur had taken the life insurance policy from the respondents for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the period from 28.11.1994 to 28.11.2009. It was a pay back policy. She had filled the proposal form-cum-personal statement. She had executed proposal-cum-personal statement on 6.1.1995 under table 74.15 issued by the respondent. The said policy had lapsed for non payment of 2 years premium, which had fallen due in November 2000 and November 2001. The insurance policy was got revived by the life insured on 21.6.2002 and she died two days thereafter on 23.6.2002.
4. It was admitted that a sum of Rs.12,500/- was paid to Smt.Gian Kaur as first survival benefit, which was due under the insurance policy after a lapse of 5 years from the date of policy. It was also admitted that insurance claim lodged by the appellant was repudiated by the respondents vide letter dated 11.3.2003.
5. It was further pleaded that Gian Kaur was 58 years of age at the time of filling proposal form dated 6.1.1995, but she understated her age to be 45 years. Therefore as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it was void ab-initio and therefore, the appellant was not entitled any insurance claim. The repudiation was legal and valid. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6.
7. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of H.K.Chaudhary, Manager (Legal) as Ex.R1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R14.
8. After considering the pleadings of parties and affidavits/ documents produced by them on the file, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 26.5.2004.
9. Hence the appeal.
10. Submission of learned counsel for appellant was that appeal be accepted and impugned order dated 26.5.2004 be set aside and the respondents be directed to pay the insurance claim to the appellant. First Appeal No.1136 of 2004 3
11. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for respondent was that there was no merit in the appeal and same be dismissed.
12. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
13. Admittedly Gian Kaur had filled the proposal-cum-declaration form dated 6.1.1995 for the purpose of taking life insurance policy from the respondents in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. The date of commencement was made on 28.11.1994 and it was valid till 28.11.2009. It was taken under the table 74.15.
14. The respondents have proved the proposal and declaration form dated 6.1.1995 as Ex.R2. In this form, Gian Kaur had given her date of birth as 20.12.1949 and she had disclosed her age to be 45 years. She had also given declaration about her age Ex.R3, in which she deposed that she was 45 years of age and she had no other reliable documentary evidence of age to produce in proof of her age.
15. Now the respondents have taken the plea that the age of Gian Kaur as on 6.1.1995 was 58 yeas and they have placed reliance on the ration card of Balwinder Singh appellant Ex.R10 dated 1.9.2001, in which the age of his mother Gian Kaur is shown as 70 years. The respondents have also placed reliance on the voter list Ex.R11 according to which Gian Kaur was 58 years of age as on 10.5.1994. It was submitted that since age of Gian Kaur was exceeding 58 years as on 6.1.1995, therefore, she was not entitled to get the insurance policy. It was also submitted that the insurance policy was liable to be forfeited under Clause 5 of the policy bond of insurance policy as the life insured had given wrong declaration about her age. In support of this submission, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for respondents on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Minu Kalita, 2003(2) Consumer Law Today, 201.
16. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that since the date of birth / age of Gian Kaur was accepted by the respondents themselves on 6.1.1995, they had no right to go back and repudiate the claim by taking the plea that wrong date of birth was given by First Appeal No.1136 of 2004 4 Gian Kaur in the proposal form. Reliance was placed upon judgment of this Commission reported as Tej Kaur and another Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2001(1) Consumer Law Today, 193.
17. These submissions have been considered.
18. Gian Kaur had given her age to be 45 years while filling the proposal form on 6.1.1995 Ex.R7. She had given her date of birth as 20.12.1949.
19. Below the declaration of age given by Gian Kaur, there is certificate given by the Panchayat Secretary in document Ex.R3, where he deposed "Declared before me at Samana and certified that the declaration has been read over to and understood by the declarant this 6th day of January 1995". A certificate is also given that contents were read over and explained to Gian Kaur in Punjabi language. Below that the Medical Officer has given the certificate as under:-
"I hereby certified that Smt.Gian Kaur was identified before me by Shri Shiv Goel and from his appearance she looks to be approximately 45 years old.
Thumb impression Signature of Medical Officer Gian Kaur"
20. Shiv Goel has also given a certificate on the document Ex.R4 as under:-
"I have discussed the question of standard Proof of Age with the proposer and I am satisfied that he cannot submit standard Proof of Age for the following reasons:-
"The proposed is illiterate"
No other age proof could be obtained.
"I further certified that according to my estimate her apparent age is 45 years.
Signature Shiv Goel, agent There is still another certificate given by Development Officer of respondents as under:-First Appeal No.1136 of 2004 5
"I have discussed the question of standard proof of age with the proposer and I am satisfied that he cannot submit standard proof of age for the following reasons:-
"the proposer is illiterate"
I further certify that according to my estimate, his apparent age is 45 years.
6.1.95 Signature Development Officer"
21. It means therefore, that the respondents had admitted the age of Gian Kaur to be 45 years on 6.1.1995 when she had filled the proposal form.
22. Not only that after Gian Kaur had become entitled to pay back benefit. Accordingly she was paid a sum of Rs.12,500/-, which fact is admitted by the respondents in paragraph 4 to 6 as the first survival benefit. It means, therefore, that the respondents had admitted the validity of age given by the life assured even after the lapse of 5 years when she was alive.
23. Since the respondents had accepted the date of birth / age given by Gian Kaur, they are estopped by their action to challenge the said date of birth now.
24. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Minu Kalita's case concerned (relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents), it was passed on different facts. The life insured had not only given her wrong age, but she had also given her wrong income. She was also suffering from cancer which was suppressed by her while the filling proposal form. The Hon'ble National Commission was pleased to observe as under:-
"From the records before us and the arguments made by the petitioner, we are convinced that the respondent rightly repudiated because the said policy had been rendered void and invalid ab initio in view of the false and wrong answers given by the life assured and the policy was unenforceable. It is not disputed by anybody about the death of the insured arising out of cancer and the treatment for the same given in the hospitals. To take the view after the death of the insured that the treatment First Appeal No.1136 of 2004 6 given to the insured is in doubt or which side of the tonsils did he have Cancer is not clear by the District Forum and State Commission is not correct. The respondent in his complaint has clearly taken the objection to repudiation mainly on one ground that the petitioner cannot question the state of health of the insured after issuing the policy on the basis of their own medical officer's approval of good health of the insured".
Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in Minu Kalita's case is not applicable to the facts of this case.
25. On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant in Tej Kaur's case is fully applicable. In this reported judgment also, the life insured had filled his age to be 45 years, while the Life Insurance Company had taken the plea that age of the life assured on the date of filling the form was 57 years. Hence repudiation was pleaded. This Commission rejected the contention by observing as under:-
"4. As to whether repudiation of the claim was based on such evidence which otherwise could conclusively prove the actual age of Hakam Singh is for onsideration. Such a decision was taken by the Corporation on the following documents:-
(1) Ration Card (copy Ex. OP-7) describing the age of Hakam Singh as 50 years. At this stage, it may be observed that the Corporation had taken up the stand that even 50 years as mentioned in the Ration Card was subsequently substituted in place of 60 years..
(2) Voter List (Ex. OP. 10) giving the age of Hakam Singh at Sr. No. 328 as 60 years.
(3) Two affidavits collected by the Life Insurance Corporation of the co-villagers namely Bawa Singh son of Jangir Singh and Teja Singh son of Maskan Singh. Bawa Singh in his affidavit stated that Hakam Singh was born in October 1943 and Teja Singh stated that Hakam singh First Appeal No.1136 of 2004 7 aged about 4 years at the time of partition and that he wan born in 1943.
5. At the outset it may be stated that the estimations regarding age given by villagers can hardly be treated as cogent evidence of proof of actual date of birth. On the same ground, it is mentioned that either the applications of obtaining Ration Cards or in that sense the Ration Card or the Voter list cannot be treated as a conclusive proof of actual age mentioned therein of the persons. The purpose of referring the age in these documents is only to find out if the persons are majors or not and the object is not to determine the actual age of birth. The Corporation on such evidence could not come to the conclusion that the actual age of Hakam Singh at the time of taking the policy was incorrectly stated to be 45 years."
26. In this context, reference also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court reported as Allianz Und Stuttgarter Life Insurance Bank Ltd. Vs. Hemanta Kumar Dass, AIR 1938, Calcutta, 641, in which the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had held as under:-
"It is to be borne in mind that this was an insurance by a man who admittedly was, at any rate, at the age of over forty-five years. He himself stated that he was fifty four. Therefore, the transaction came within the category of those proposals which require at the outset the furnishing by the proponents of proof of their age. Noot Behari Das was required to furnish proof of his age. He produced a horoscope. The horoscope was accepted by the company as being sufficient. Therefore, we may take that the company issued the policy upon the footing that they were insuring the life of a man whose age was fifty four. This is not a case where the proposer says that his age was fifty four and the Company merely accepted that statement at its face value and proceeded to issue a policy on that footing and subsequently, First Appeal No.1136 of 2004 8 either shortly afterwards or a long time afterwards, admitted the age as stated in the policy in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9(2) thereof. This was a case where the whole transaction from the very beginning proceeded upon the basis that the company had satisfied themselves that the proposer was of the age of fifty four and then issued the policy accordingly. In my view therefore the admission contained in the endorsement at page 3 of the policy is of such a character that the defendants when the policy matured could not be heard to say that the age of the insured was anything different from what he himself had stated it to be in February 1934. It is not necessary that one should apply in terms of the principle of estoppel, because that is merely a rule of evidence. In my view, this matter goes far deeper than that. The question of the age of the deceased was a definite and determining factor in the transaction from the very outset."
27. This judgment has been quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported as P.C.Chako & anr. Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. IX (2007) SLT, 533.
28. In view of the discussion held above, we hold that once the respondents had accepted the age of Gian Kaur to be 45 years, they have no right to repudiate the insurance claim by alleging her age to be different than that.
29. Accordingly this appeal is accepted and impugned order dated 26.5.2004 is set aside with costs of Rs.2000/-. Respondents are directed to pay the insurance claim and all the benefits flowing from the insurance policy with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of repudiation till the date of payment.
30. The arguments in this case were heard on 7.5.2010 and the order was reserved. Now order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No.1136 of 2004 9
31. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma) Member May 11, 2010.
Davinder