State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pardeep Arora Son Of Ram Saran Dass vs Cholamandalam Finance Limited on 16 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 689 of 2011
Date of Institution : 25.04.2011
Date of decision : 16.03.2012
Pardeep Arora son of Ram Saran Dass resident of behind Ahluwalia Complex,
Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda.
...Appellant
Versus
Cholamandalam finance Limited, Bathinda through its Collection Managers Sh.
Harpal singh, Jagtar Singh, Mr. Akhilesh, Branch head of Bathinda office, Ground
Floor, MC No. 2707-C-10-1, GT Road, Near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 15.03.2011 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Bathinda.
Before:-
Hon'ble Sh.Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Suresh Singla, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER
The counsel for the respondent submitted that compromise has been effected between the parties as per the Memo of Understanding dated 16.02.2012. The photostat copy of the same is exhibited as Ex-C1.
The learned counsel for the appellant has also made a statement that in view of the compromise the appeal has become infructuous and the same be dismissed as withdrawn.
As per the statement of the counsel of the appellant, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Piare Lal Garg) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member March 16, 2012.
Kumud STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007
Date of Institution : 04.12.2007 Date of decision : 19.03.2012
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Divisional Office, Sector 17-Chandigarh.
2. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Satta Bazar Chowk, Malerkotla.
(Both through its Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC, Jeevan Parkash Buildng, Sector 17, Chandigarh).
...Appellants Versus Sariya mother of Iyameen s/o Habib Mohd. Village Burja Beghel Singh Wala, Post Office Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
...Respondent First Appeal against the order dated 25.10.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate for Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER This is an appeal against the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the "Distt. Forum") vide which the compliant of the respondent was allowed
2. Brief facts of the case are that Iyameen, son of Habib Mohd.
Resident of Village Buraj Beghel Singh Wala, Post office Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur was holding LIC Policy No. 162725498 dated 23.06.2004 which was issued by the Malerkotla Branch of the appellants on 23.06.2004. The life assured died on 03.05.2005 and complainant- respondent, being nominee of the deceased Iyameen, filed the death claim to the appellants on 11.05.2005 but, the Senior Manager LIC, Chandigarh First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007 2 rejected the application and replied to the respondent on 31.12.2005 that no compensation can be paid to the respondent because policy-holder withheld the correct information regarding his age at the time of commencement of the policy. It was pleaded that the appellants had committed grave error in rejecting the application on that ground. The appellants had demaned from the policy-holder nearer birthday and he gave ration-card in proof of his age which was properly verified at the time of commencement of the policy.
3. Thereafter, that the respondent approached Zonal Manager LIC, New Delhi, and requested to release him the amount of the policy but on 08.12.2006, Zonal Manager, through Senior Divisional Manager, declined the request of the respondent. The respondent also filed complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, but all in vein.
4. Hence, the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the appellants to pay the amount as per policy with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental torture, agony, inconvenience and as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice, the appellants filed a joint written statement in which it was admitted that on the basis of proposal no. 2071 dated 21.06.2004 policy No.162725498 for the sum assured Rs. 1, 05,000/- was issued to Sh. Iyameen. The date of commencement of the policy was 23.06.2004 and the first premium was paid on 24.06.2004. It was pleaded, that, at the time of taking the insurance policy, the respondent was designated by the life assured as nominee to receive the policy proceeds.
6. It was further pleaded that in the policy papers the life assured have stated his date of birth as 05.01.1984 and he submitted the ration card dated 05.07.1995 as well as form No. 3260 regarding the age proof. Accordingly his age nearer birthday was found to be 20 years on the date of proposal. Just after 10 months and 10 days, life assured died due to 2 First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007 3 heart attack without any medical aid. The claim, being an early claim from the date of the policy in question, it was got investigated by the LIC to finalise the benefits of the claim. After investigation, the Enquiry Officer found it a case of over-statement of age by 3 years. He also produced the statement of school Headmaster of Govt. High School, Salar, Distt. Sangrur. As per school record, the date of birth of life assured, was 09.01.1987 and not 05.01.1984 as stated by deceased life assured in his proposal form. Accordingly the age at the time of risk commencement comes to 17 years, 5 months and 14 days i.e. he was minor at that time. As per the policy, a contract minor has no capacity to enter into any contract. Hence, the contract was void ab initio. Accordingly the claim was declared not payable and intimation in this regard was sent by the Divisional Officer, LIC, Chandigarh vide registered letter dated 31.12.2005.
7. It was further submitted that the respondent also filed complaint before insurance ombudsman. As per the orders of the Insurance ombudsman, the insurance company was further advised to verify the date of birth of the deceased life assured from registrar office or from the record of the Village Chowkidar. But the Investigating Officer informed that no record was available with the Village Chowkidar and it was confirmed that date of birth mentioned in school certificate was correct. He also verified from the Headmaster Primary School of Baghel Singhwala. So in the record of both the schools date of birth of the deceased life assured was recorded as 09.01.1987.
8. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
9. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
10. The learned District Forum after, going though the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- alongwith the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of 3 First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007 4 repudiation i.e. 31.12.2005 till realization. Appellants were also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses.
11. Aggrieved by this order the appellants have come up in appeal.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased life assured, in order to get the LIC policy, mentioned in-correct date of birth as 05.01.1984, whereas his actual date of birth was 09.01.1987. It was further submitted that on the date of commencement of risk the age of the proposer was 13 years 5 months and 14 days and thus he was a minor and thus, was not eligible to enter into any contract of insurance. Actual date of birth was got verified from two different schools where the deceased life assured had studied. Thus, the deceased life assured over-stated his age at the time of filling the proposal form. Therefore, the contract of insurance entered by him with appellants became void ab initio and the no claim was payable. Accordingly the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 31.12.2005. Acceptance of the appeal was prayed.
14. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and same may be dismissed.
15. Submissions hav e been considered and record has been perused.
16. It has been contended by the appellants that while filling up the proposal form on 21.06.20045 Sh. Iyameen did not produce the standard age proof i.e. birth certificate of age and only submitted the ration card. Therefore, he was asked to fill form No. 3260 in support of his age. The appellants have proved on record the proposal form and from no.3260 as Annexure A1 and A2 respectively.
17. Life assured in proposal form 3260 has given his educational qualification as under metric. Secondly, reasons for not submitting the standard age proof. No record," It has also been mentioned as "No record available" certified by the deceased life assured, I hereby agree that his estimated age was 20 years and that his date of birth was 05.01.1984
18. The appellants have also proved on record the certificate from headmaster Govt. High School, Distt. Sangrur as Annexure A-6 in which it has 4 First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007 5 been stated that as per the school record date of birth of life assured was 09.01.1987.
19. The appellants have further placed on record the letter dated 27.022007 by insurance ombudsman, Chandigarh and it has been held as under:-
"After, hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the basic issue is correct age of deceased life assured at the time of taking insurance cover. The complainant could not produce any document from the office of Registrar of Deaths and Births. The insurer is advised to depute a responsible office to hospital where deceased life assured was born to ascertain the correct age and obtain proof to that effect. Based on this document the claim may be settled on merits within 45 days. In case no documents is made available as proof of age of birth the present repudiation will hold good.
20. It is evident that the deceased life assured did not deliberately produce the school leaving certificate as proof of age because he was minor as per the date mentioned in the school record. Therefore, he produced non-standard age proof in the form of Ration Card which is not considered as a valid document for ascertaining the age. Accordingly, the appellants got filled form No. 3260 from the respondent where the deceased life assured also deliberately mentioned that no record of school leaving certificate was available.
21. Since, it was a case of early claim, the matter was got investigated by the appellants and it was found that as per the record maintained in the Govt. High School, Salar and Govt. Primary School, Salar the date of birth of the deceased life assured is 09.01.1987. Based on this date of birth, the deceased life assured was a minor on the date of commencement of the risk under the policy and he was not legally competent to sign any contract of insurance. Thus, the contract of insurance signed by the deceased life assured on 21.06.2004 was void ab initio.
22. In view of the above findings and the discussion, we hold that the repudiation of the claim of the respondents by the appellants was justified. Accordingly the appeal of the appellants is accepted and the impugned order of 5 First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007 6 the learned District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint of the respondent is dismissed.
23. The appellants had deposited Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing of appeal on 22.6.2007. This amount along with interest, if any, be refunded to the appellants by way of crossed cheque / bank draft after expiry of 45 days.
24. The arguments in this case were heard on 05.03.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member March 19, 2012.
Kumud 6 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007
Date of Institution : 04.12.2007 Date of decision : 19.03.2012
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Divisional Office, Sector 17-Chandigarh.
2. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Satta Bazar Chowk, Malerkotla.
(Both through its Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC, Jeevan Parkash Buildng, Sector 17, Chandigarh).
...Appellants Versus Sariya mother of Iyameen s/o Habib Mohd. Village Burja Beghel Singh Wala, Post Office Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
...Respondent First Appeal against the order dated 25.10.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate for Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER This is an appeal against the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the "Distt. Forum") vide which the compliant of the respondent was allowed
2. Brief facts of the case are that Iyameen, son of Habib Mohd.
Resident of Village Buraj Beghel Singh Wala, Post office Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur was holding LIC Policy No. 162725498 dated 23.06.2004 which was issued by the Malerkotla Branch of the appellants on 23.06.2004. The life assured died on 03.05.2005 and complainant- respondent, being nominee of the deceased Iyameen, filed the death claim to the appellants on 11.05.2005 but, the Senior Manager LIC, Chandigarh First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007 2 rejected the application and replied to the respondent on 31.12.2005 that no compensation can be paid to the respondent because policy-holder withheld the correct information regarding his age at the time of commencement of the policy. It was pleaded that the appellants had committed grave error in rejecting the application on that ground. The appellants had demaned from the policy-holder nearer birthday and he gave ration-card in proof of his age which was properly verified at the time of commencement of the policy.
3. Thereafter, that the respondent approached Zonal Manager LIC, New Delhi, and requested to release him the amount of the policy but on 08.12.2006, Zonal Manager, through Senior Divisional Manager, declined the request of the respondent. The respondent also filed complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, but all in vein.
4. Hence, the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the appellants to pay the amount as per policy with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental torture, agony, inconvenience and as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice, the appellants filed a joint written statement in which it was admitted that on the basis of proposal no. 2071 dated 21.06.2004 policy No.162725498 for the sum assured Rs. 1, 05,000/- was issued to Sh. Iyameen. The date of commencement of the policy was 23.06.2004 and the first premium was paid on 24.06.2004. It was pleaded, that, at the time of taking the insurance policy, the respondent was designated by the life assured as nominee to receive the policy proceeds.
6. It was further pleaded that in the policy papers the life assured have stated his date of birth as 05.01.1984 and he submitted the ration card dated 05.07.1995 as well as form No. 3260 regarding the age proof. Accordingly his age nearer birthday was found to be 20 years on the date of proposal. Just after 10 months and 10 days, life assured died due to 2 First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007 3 heart attack without any medical aid. The claim, being an early claim from the date of the policy in question, it was got investigated by the LIC to finalise the benefits of the claim. After investigation, the Enquiry Officer found it a case of over-statement of age by 3 years. He also produced the statement of school Headmaster of Govt. High School, Salar, Distt. Sangrur. As per school record, the date of birth of life assured, was 09.01.1987 and not 05.01.1984 as stated by deceased life assured in his proposal form. Accordingly the age at the time of risk commencement comes to 17 years, 5 months and 14 days i.e. he was minor at that time. As per the policy, a contract minor has no capacity to enter into any contract. Hence, the contract was void ab initio. Accordingly the claim was declared not payable and intimation in this regard was sent by the Divisional Officer, LIC, Chandigarh vide registered letter dated 31.12.2005.
7. It was further submitted that the respondent also filed complaint before insurance ombudsman. As per the orders of the Insurance ombudsman, the insurance company was further advised to verify the date of birth of the deceased life assured from registrar office or from the record of the Village Chowkidar. But the Investigating Officer informed that no record was available with the Village Chowkidar and it was confirmed that date of birth mentioned in school certificate was correct. He also verified from the Headmaster Primary School of Baghel Singhwala. So in the record of both the schools date of birth of the deceased life assured was recorded as 09.01.1987.
8. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
9. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
10. The learned District Forum after, going though the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- alongwith the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of 3 First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007 4 repudiation i.e. 31.12.2005 till realization. Appellants were also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses.
11. Aggrieved by this order the appellants have come up in appeal.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased life assured, in order to get the LIC policy, mentioned in-correct date of birth as 05.01.1984, whereas his actual date of birth was 09.01.1987. It was further submitted that on the date of commencement of risk the age of the proposer was 13 years 5 months and 14 days and thus he was a minor and thus, was not eligible to enter into any contract of insurance. Actual date of birth was got verified from two different schools where the deceased life assured had studied. Thus, the deceased life assured over-stated his age at the time of filling the proposal form. Therefore, the contract of insurance entered by him with appellants became void ab initio and the no claim was payable. Accordingly the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 31.12.2005. Acceptance of the appeal was prayed.
14. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and same may be dismissed.
15. Submissions hav e been considered and record has been perused.
16. It has been contended by the appellants that while filling up the proposal form on 21.06.20045 Sh. Iyameen did not produce the standard age proof i.e. birth certificate of age and only submitted the ration card. Therefore, he was asked to fill form No. 3260 in support of his age. The appellants have proved on record the proposal form and from no.3260 as Annexure A1 and A2 respectively.
17. Life assured in proposal form 3260 has given his educational qualification as under metric. Secondly, reasons for not submitting the standard age proof. No record," It has also been mentioned as "No record available" certified by the deceased life assured, I hereby agree that his estimated age was 20 years and that his date of birth was 05.01.1984
18. The appellants have also proved on record the certificate from headmaster Govt. High School, Distt. Sangrur as Annexure A-6 in which it has 4 First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007 5 been stated that as per the school record date of birth of life assured was 09.01.1987.
19. The appellants have further placed on record the letter dated 27.022007 by insurance ombudsman, Chandigarh and it has been held as under:-
"After, hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the basic issue is correct age of deceased life assured at the time of taking insurance cover. The complainant could not produce any document from the office of Registrar of Deaths and Births. The insurer is advised to depute a responsible office to hospital where deceased life assured was born to ascertain the correct age and obtain proof to that effect. Based on this document the claim may be settled on merits within 45 days. In case no documents is made available as proof of age of birth the present repudiation will hold good.
20. It is evident that the deceased life assured did not deliberately produce the school leaving certificate as proof of age because he was minor as per the date mentioned in the school record. Therefore, he produced non-standard age proof in the form of Ration Card which is not considered as a valid document for ascertaining the age. Accordingly, the appellants got filled form No. 3260 from the respondent where the deceased life assured also deliberately mentioned that no record of school leaving certificate was available.
21. Since, it was a case of early claim, the matter was got investigated by the appellants and it was found that as per the record maintained in the Govt. High School, Salar and Govt. Primary School, Salar the date of birth of the deceased life assured is 09.01.1987. Based on this date of birth, the deceased life assured was a minor on the date of commencement of the risk under the policy and he was not legally competent to sign any contract of insurance. Thus, the contract of insurance signed by the deceased life assured on 21.06.2004 was void ab initio.
22. In view of the above findings and the discussion, we hold that the repudiation of the claim of the respondents by the appellants was justified. Accordingly the appeal of the appellants is accepted and the impugned order of 5 First Appeal No. 1562 of 2007 6 the learned District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint of the respondent is dismissed.
23. The appellants had deposited Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing of appeal on 22.6.2007. This amount along with interest, if any, be refunded to the appellants by way of crossed cheque / bank draft after expiry of 45 days.
24. The arguments in this case were heard on 05.03.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member March 19, 2012.
Kumud 6