State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India, ... vs Gurmeet Kaur Aged About 30 Years Widow Of ... on 13 December, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1521 of 2010
Date of institution : 30.8.2010
Date of decision : 13.12.2012
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh
through its Manager (L&HPF)
.....Appellants/O.Ps.
Versus
Gurmeet Kaur aged about 30 years widow of Late. Sh.
Gurdial Singh and D/o Sucha Singh R/o VPO Pakan, Via
Arniwala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur
Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
28.06.2010 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ferozepur
Before:-
Sardar. Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. Deepak Arora, Advocate For the respondent : None JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is O.P's appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the order dated 28.6.2010 passed by First Appeal No.1521 of 2010 2 the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and the O.Ps were directed to pay to the complainant the sum assured alongwith accrued benefits and interest @ 7% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. The appellant was also directed to pay Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses.
2. According to the complainant, her father Sucha Singh had an Endowment Assurance Policy purchased from the appellant on 28.6.2005 with maturity date as 28.6.2022 for a sum of Rs. 1 lac. Its half yearly premium was being regularly paid and she being the daughter of the insured was nominee in the policy. Sucha Singh unfortunately expired on 16.5.2008 at village Pakkan while living with the complainant regarding which complainant/respondent informed the O.P/appellant. She requested for the insurance amount but they delayed the payment on one pretext or the other and she had to file consumer complaint No. 72 of 2009 which was decided by the learned District Forum in her favour vide impugned order dated 25.8.2009 against which F.A. No. 1740 of 2009 has been filed by the appellant.
3. It was alleged by the complainant that she submitted the documents and requested the O.P to settle the claim but they First Appeal No.1521 of 2010 3 continued harassing her and ultimately repudiated the claim. She therefore filed the present consumer complaint No. 115 of 2010 alleging that the repudiation made by them was on frivolous grounds which has no bearing with the case and that the insured was not suffering from any disease when he purchased the policy and that there was no concealment of material information from the O.P. She therefore prayed for direction to the O.P/appellant to pay her Rs. 1 lac as claim amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, another sum of Rs. 1 lac as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. The complaint was opposed by the O.P/appellant alleging that Sucha Singh son of Lal Singh was a resident of VPO Sadiq and he had given his wrong age at different places i.e. in the voter's list, identity card, ration card and while obtaining old age pension from the government. It was alleged that suppression of age is a material factor for which the claim was repudiated. It is also argued that the insured was suffering from Hernia which also was not disclosed by the insured and therefore repudiation of the claim was justified.
5. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions. First Appeal No.1521 of 2010 4
6. Learned District forum after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, allowed the complaint as mentioned in Para No. 1 above. The O.P has challenged the same through this appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments on the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the insurance policy, the date of birth of the insured is mentioned as 3.8.1947 and his age as 58 years on 28.6.2005 when the proposal form for insurance Ex. C-9 was submitted by him. Learned counsel then referred to Ex. R-4 which is voter's list for the year 2007 in which the name of Sucha Singh insured is mentioned at Sr. No. 171 and his age is mentioned as 66 years. Ex. R-5 is the copy of ration card issued to the wife of Sucha Singh and her age is mentioned as 70 years. Sucha Singh was a recipient of old age pension since November 1996 when he disclosed his age as 70 years. This fact was intimated by the District Social Security Officer, Faridkot vide letter Ex. R-12. Learned counsel therefore argued that the age of Sucha Singh was more than 70 years when he obtained the policy of insurance but he concealed his real age and has mentioned his age as 58 years which was a material concealment on account of which the claim was rightly First Appeal No.1521 of 2010 5 repudiated. We do not find any merit in this argument. A similar question arose in case Anand Kumar Kejriwal Vs. LIC of India and another II(2011)CPJ249 in which the Hon'ble National Commission did not consider the suppression of age by insurer as suppression of material fact. Otherwise also, the O.P/appellant has not produced any other evidence which may be admissible in evidence and reliable to prove as to what the actual age of the insured was. So far as the age mentioned in the voter's list is concerned, it cannot be accepted as proof of age. In case LIC of India and other Vs. Gopal Singh II (2011)CPJ 7, the claim was repudiated alleging that the age was wrongly mentioned by the insured. Hon'ble National Commission held that the age given in voter's list cannot be taken as a sure test to determine the exact age of a person. It was observed that frequently small mistakes regarding residence, age, parentage do occur while preparing voter's list and therefore it is not a conclusive evidence to show that the assured had mentioned his age incorrectly with malafide intention. Similarly the age of his wife or the age given by the insured for obtaining old age pension cannot be considered as proof of his age. It therefore cannot be said if the insured suppressed his age. First Appeal No.1521 of 2010 6
8. The appellant while issuing the insurance policy had accepted 3.8.1947 as the date of birth of the insured and his age as 58 years. That was the appropriate time for the O.P to seek documents or other evidence from the insured to ascertain his age. However if they did not dispute the age at that time while issuing the insurance policy and obtaining premium from him, it does not lie in their mouth to turn around and say now after his death that he disclosed his age wrong.
9. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the insured was suffering from hernia but this fact was not disclosed by him in his proposal form and therefore it amounts to concealment of material facts. In order to prove that the insured was operated for hernia, no worthwhile evidence has been produced by the O.P/appellant. Neither the record of the hospital where the alleged operation was got conducted nor the affidavit of doctor who conducted the said operation was produced. The entire case is based by the O.Ps on Ex. R-17 which is said to be a prescription slip issued by Dashmesh hospital on 09.06.2003. This slip cannot be connected with the insured because neither the father's name nor the residence of Sucha Singh to whom this prescription slip is alleged to have been issued has been mentioned. The First Appeal No.1521 of 2010 7 person who prepared the prescription slip has not been examined nor his affidavit has been produced. It is not proved as to whether the insured was suffering from hernia and was operated there for and if so in which hospital and by which doctor. We therefore cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the insured was suffering from hernia or he concealed the material information from the O.Ps.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Mithu Lal Nayak Vs. LIC AIR 1962 (SC)814 held that it is not concealment of every fact which entitles the insurance company to repudiate the insurance claim. For this purpose, the appellant was to prove that the information was material and was suppressed with a fraudulent intention. In the present case, the insured died of a cardiac arrest and not due to hernia or old age. There is no allegation if the insured was suffering from any heart problem or hypertension and therefore the concealment of hernia or age, even if presumed to be there, cannot be accepted as material concealment authorising the appellant to repudiate the claim.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint. The impugned order is perfectly legal and valid and it does First Appeal No.1521 of 2010 8 not call for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs. Litigation cost is assessed as Rs. 10,000/-
12. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 30.8.2010. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)
PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
December 13, 2012. (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)
Rupinder MEMBER
First Appeal No.1521 of 2010 9