State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.Nageswaramma, W/O.Rangaiah,Kapada ... vs The Branch Manager,Kurnool 518 002. on 4 April, 2014
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT TIRUPATI. FA.No.703/2013 against CC.No.52/2012 District Consumer Forum-Kurnool, Between: P.Nageswaramma, W/o.Rangaiah, H.No.3/5, Yerragudi Post, R.S.Kondapuram Mandal, Kapada District. Appellant/Complainant. And 1.The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, River View Colony, D.No.40-36-3, Kurnool 518 002. 2.The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, College Road, Post Box No.10, Kadapa District 516 004. ...Respondents/Opp.Parties. Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.M.Hari Babu. Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.N.Mohana Krishna (for R.1 and R.2) QUORUM: HONBLE JUSTICE SRI GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, HONBLE PRESIDENT, AND SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN .
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri Gopalakrishna Tamada, Honble President) ******* Complainant is the appellant and she had approached this Commission questioning the order dated 05.06.2013 made by the District Consumer Forum, Kurnool in C.C.No.52/2012 whereby the assured amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum, compensation and costs were rejected by the said Forum.
The brief facts as per the complainant are that she is the sister of one P.Obulesu and during his life time the said Obulesu insured his life with the opposite parties Insurance Company for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, vide policy No.655754342 and also paid a premium of Rs.24,260/-.
Subsequent to the taking of the policy, the said Obulesu died on 08.06.2010 due to heart attack.
As the complainant is the sister and nominee as per the said policy, she approached the opposite parties and made the said claim, but however the same was rejected stating that though the insured i.e. Obulesu was aged about 50 years, the said fact was not disclosed and it was mentioned as if he was aged only 44 years when he took the policy. In those circumstances, she was constrained to approach the District Forum and file the said complaint.
The same was resisted by the opposite parties i.e. the Insurance Company by filing written version, wherein it was stated that the deceased submitted a false Study Certificate to establish that he was born on 01.07.1966 and studied in the school from 1971-1972 to 1975-1976 from Class I to V at Mandal Parishath Primary School, Yerragudi Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. At the time of taking the policy, the said Obulesu mentioned his age as 44 years only in the proposal form and as such the claim of the complainant was rejected.
The District Forum having considered the complaint, written version, affidavit evidence of both parties and also documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.6 and B.1 to B.5 dismissed the said complaint.
As stated supra, the same is in challenge.
Heard. In our considered view the District Forum is not justified in rejecting the claim of the complainant. The facts are that the insured i.e. late Obulesu studied only upto 3rd class and as such it can definitely be inferred that he is an illiterate person. Further, he is a resident of a village where most of the residents are rustic and they cannot give their correct date of birth. In those circumstances, may be it is a fact that he has stated that he was aged 44 years whereas he is aged 50 years. To establish that he is aged 50 years the Insurance Company has examined R.W.1 i.e. Head Master I/C of M.P.P.School, Yerragudi on 30.11.2012. According to the said evidence, the deceased studied in the said school during the years 1971-72 to 1975 -1976 i.e. for a period of five years. From that we cannot come to the conclusion that the deceased Obulesu intentionally suppressed the year and gave false declaration at the time when he took the policy that was in the year 2010.
As the laws that are made are inadequate i.e., Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Weights & Measures Enforcement Act etc., are dealing, with regard to, Imposition of penalties for the offences but the aggrieved persons such as consumers are not properly compensated. The parliament thought it fit to bring an enactment taking the welfare of the consumers into consideration, and brought the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called the Act) and the said Act came into existence in the year 1986.
The main purpose of this Act is to see that the consumers are properly compensated for their loss or suffering.
The objects and reasons of the Act are to see that as and when there is deficiency of service or there is some unfair trade practice, consumers shall be properly compensated. If there is deficiency of service on the part of service providers or traders indulge in unfair trade practice are punished as per the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or Weights & Measures Enforcement Act etc., but the consumers would not get any benefit from the said Acts.
The Act is a beneficial legislation and the cases coming under the provisions of the Act are to be tried summarily following the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. It is also made clear in the said Act that all the Provisions in Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) need not be applied strictly. When the above principles of law are taken into consideration the Dist. Fora, State Commissions decide the cases, the endeavour shall be to see that the consumer is always benefited and there is no scope for any technicalities. In cases, falling under insurance claims and their repudiation, the insurance companies are always coming forward with some technical defect or the other. When it is the case of rustic villagers who are totally illiterate, the agents of the insurance companies in their haste to do more business attract them, fill up the application forms with all false statements without getting correct information from the said villagers/consumers/insured. For instance, if a claim is made, it is common knowledge that in villages they do not maintain any birth registers and approximately they give the age as 25/30/40 so on and so forth, though in reality their age is much more than what is stated in the proposal form/declaration. The endeavour of the insurance agents is always to do more business. When something goes wrong and the claimants of the said insured approach the insurance companies seeking claim amounts, the insurance companies are repudiating the said claims on the ground that false declaration has been given and in those circumstances, the said claimants are not entitled for insurance amounts. As already observed, the Act is a benevolent legislation, keeping the welfare of the consumers but not to defeat their interests. In such circumstances, unless and until the insurance companies come forward with cogent evidence which shall be accepted under any circumstance, the benefit shall always be given to the consumers/claimants with regard to the age.
In fact when the policy is taken it is the normal practice of the insurance companies to refer the proposer/insured to the empanelled doctor and based on the declaration made by the proposer, the insurance companies are accepting it. When the panel doctors certify that he is hale and healthy, the insurance companies at a later stage i.e., at the stage when the claim is made cannot turn round and say that he gave a false declaration.
The insurance companies are precluded from taking a different stand when the claim is made having accepted the policy with the information furnished by the insured/deceased.
Accordingly, we are of the view that the District Forum has not taken these aspects into consideration while dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside.
In the result, the appeal is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from date of this appeal till the date of realisation and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
___________________________ (PRESIDENT) ___________________________ (MEMBER) Dt: 04.04.2014.
Vvr.