State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lic vs Bimla Rani And Others on 1 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1438 of 2004
Date of institution: 25.11.2004
Date of decision : 01.09.2010
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Patiala - I, Patiala
through its Branch Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Sr. Divisional Manager,
Jeevan Deep Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Bimla Rani widow of late Sh.Surinder Pal son of Sant Lal;
2. Pooja daughter of late Sh.Surinder Pal w/o Mahavir Aggarwal, Aggarwal
Trading Co., Canal Road, Narwana.
3. Shiv Kumar s/o late Sh.Surinder Pal;
4. Deepika @ Geetika d/o late Sh.Surinder Pal (w/o Rajesh Gupta, SCF 174,
Sector 26, Chandigarh.
All residents of H.No.3247/2, Mohalla Noorgirian, Patiala.
5. Sonam Raj s/o late Sh.Bant Lal, M/s Bansal Traders Sanuari Gate, near
PNB, Patiala.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 6.10.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col.Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate For respondents No.1-4 : Sh.Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate For respondent No.5 : Ex parte JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT This order will dispose of two appeals bearing First Appeal No.1437 of 2004 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v. Bimla Devi and others) and First Appeal No.1438 of 2004 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v. Bimla Devi and others) as both these appeals were decided by the First Appeal No.1438 of 2004 2 learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "the District Forum") vide same impugned order dated 6.10.2004. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.1438 of 2004 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Surinder Pal (in short "the insured") husband of Bimla Rani respondent No.1, father of Pooja, Shiv Kumar and Deepika respondents No.2 to 4 and brother of Sonam Raj respondent No.5 was holding a 20 years money back life insurance policy with effect from 15.11.2000 for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Its maturity date was 15.11.2020. It was issued by the appellants. The insured was making the payment of due instalments from time to time. Said Surinder Pal died on 22.6.2002. The insurance claim was lodged by the respondents. It was repudiated by the appellants. Hence, the complaint for insurance claim including bonus etc. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed. First Appeal No.1437 of 2004
3. In this appeal, the insured had taken the life insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- with commencement date as 28.03.1995. Its maturity date was 28.03.2015.
First Appeal No.1438 of 2004
4. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the insured was having life insurance policy for an amount of Rs.60,000/- with commencement date as 15.11.2000. The maturity date was 15.11.2020. It was admitted that the insured died on 22.06.2002.
5. However, it was pleaded that the insured had submitted the proposal form dated 6.11.2000 in which he had deliberately understated his age by 5 years and 4 months. He had also concealed that he was suffering from Epilepsy for the last 18 years. Therefore, the repudiation was legal and valid. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. Bimla Rani respondent No.1 filed her affidavit Ex.C1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, the First Appeal No.1438 of 2004 3 appellants filed the affidavit of J.P.K. Minhas, A.O. as Ex.R1. They also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8.
7. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 6.10.2004 with costs of Rs.500/- and directed the appellants to pay the amount due under the policy within a period of one month, failing which, the appellants would be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum.
8. Hence, the appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that since the insured had understated his age and since he had suppressed the material facts about the illness (Epilepsy), therefore, the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 6.10.2004 be set aside.
10. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. The admitted facts are that the insured had taken the life insurance policy from the appellants for an amount of Rs.60,000/- by filling the proposal form on 6.11.2000 and with commencement date as 15.11.2000. So far as the understating of the age of the life insured is concerned, he had disclosed his age to be 40 years as on 6.11.2000. However, the appellants have filed the affidavit of Shakuntla Devi (mother of the insured) as Ex.R4 in which she deposed that the date of birth of Surinder Pal was 29.6.1955. It means that he was about 45 years of age as on 6.11.2000.
13. This submission has been considered.
14. It has no merits at all. Since Shakuntla Devi has thumb marked the alleged affidavit, therefore, she was not an educated woman. There is also no evidence if she was swearing this affidavit Ex.R1 on the basis of some document. Although Shakuntla Devi was the mother of the insured, it cannot be expected if she remembered even the date of birth of her son orally. It appears that she thumb First Appeal No.1438 of 2004 4 marked the document even without knowing its content. Therefore, this document is not sufficient to prove if the insured was 45 years of age at the time when he filled the proposal form on 6.11.2000.
15. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the certificate of hospital treatment of Surinder Pal (Ex.R5) issued by Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. In this hospital, Surinder Pal insured was admitted on 20.6.2002 and the age of Surinder Pal is shown as 47 years. This age is again unreliable as this age is approximate age and not the exact age. Therefore, on the basis of this document also, it cannot be stated if Surinder Pal insured had understated his age to be 40 years in the proposal form dated 6.11.2000.
16. Moreover, the appellants had accepted the age of the insured to be 40 years while issuing the life insurance policy. They cannot now turn around and repudiate the insurance claim alleging that the insured had understated his age. The appellants could have asked for some proof of his age at that time. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of this Commission dated 11.05.2010 passed in First Appeal No.1136 of 2004 (Balwinder Singh v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India and another). It was held in the aforesaid judgment as under : -
"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 First Appeal No.1438 of 2004 5 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, 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 First Appeal No.1438 of 2004 6 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"
17. It is, therefore, held that neither the insured had understated his age nor the appellants can repudiate the claim on its basis.
18. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Surinder Pal insured was suffering from Epilepsy which he had suppressed while filling the proposal form dated 6.11.2000. To prove that he was suffering form this disease, the appellants had made reference to the certificate of hospital treatment in Form No.3816 (Ex.R5) as also to the certificate of hospital treatment Ex.R6 issued by Amar Hospital, Patiala in which it is mentioned that Surinder Pal insured was suffering from Epilepsy for the last 20 years.
19. It was laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "Mithoolal Nayak v. Life Insurance Corporation of India" AIR 1962 Supreme Court 814 that it is not the concealment of every fact which entitles the insurance company to repudiate the insurance claim. For this purpose, the insurance company has to prove that the information suppressed by the insured was material and that it was suppressed by the insured with fraudulent intention.
20. Epilepsy is not fatal. It is a disease of intermittent nature which could be kept under control by medicines. It is obvious even from the document Ex.R6 proved by the appellants themselves. Even as per this document, the insured was suffering from Epilepsy for the last 20 years. If it had been fatal, he would not have survived for such a long time. Therefore, the suppression of First Appeal No.1438 of 2004 7 Epilepsy disease is not sufficient for the appellants to repudiate the claim. Moreover, the insured had died on 22.6.2002. He was suffering from TB Abdomen for 20 days and Jaundice as per the certificate of hospital treatment Ex.R5 where he was admitted on 20.6.2002 and the insured had left the hospital on 21.6.2002 against the medical advice. It means, therefore, that the cause of death had no nexus with the disease of Epilepsy. Therefore, it was not a material concealment which could be sufficient for repudiation of insurance claim.
21. The rate of interest and the costs awarded are also upheld.
22. Keeping in view the discussions held above, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
23. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal 25.11.2004. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondents No.1 to 4 in equal shares by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
24. The interest on the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
25. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to respondents No.1 to 4 in equal shares immediately.
First Appeal No.1437 of 2004
26. In view of the reasons stated above, this appeal is also dismissed.
27. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal 25.11.2004. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondents in equal shares by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the First Appeal No.1438 of 2004 8 expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
28. The interest on the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
29. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondents in equal shares immediately.
30. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.8.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
31. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT.COL.DARSHAN SINGH(RETD.)
MEMBER
September 01, 2010.
Paritosh