State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
L I C vs Sundar Singh Yadav on 12 January, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2002/1878 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. L I C A ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sundar Singh Yadav A ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. (I) Appeal No.1872 of 2002 1- Life Insurance Corporation of India through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 573, Laxmi Bhawan, Ram Ghat Road, Aligarh. 2- Life Insurance Corporation of India through Branch Manager, Branch Office above O.B.C. Bank, Near Ambedkar Park, G.T. Road, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahar. 3- Life Insurance Corporation of India through President, Central Office, "Yog-chem", Jeewan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400002 ....Appellants. Versus Sunder Singh Yadav aged about 37 years, S/o Sri Raghuveer Singh, R/O Gokulpur Ganj, (Gandhi Nagar) Sikandarabad, Bulandshahar. ...Respondent. and (II) Appeal No.1878 of 2002 1- Life Insurance Corporation of India through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 573, Laxmi Bhawan, Ram Ghat Road, Aligarh. 2- Life Insurance Corporation of India through Branch Manager, Branch Office above O.B.C. Bank, Near Ambedkar Park, G.T. Road, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahar. 3- Life Insurance Corporation of India through President, Central Office, "Yog-chem", Jeewan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400002 ....Appellants. Versus Sunder Singh Yadav aged about 37 years, S/o Sri Raghuveer Singh, R/O Gokulpur Ganj, (Gandhi Nagar) Sikandarabad, Bulandshahar. ...Respondent. (2) Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member. Sri Sanjay Jaiswal for the appellants. Sri S.K. Sharma for the respondent. Date 1.2.2016 JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Appeal No.1872 of 2002: Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav and Appeal no.1878 of 2002: Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav are connected to each other and therefore, by means of this judgment and order, both the appeals are being disposed of in accordance with law. Appeal no.1872 of 2002 is being treated as the leading case.
Aggrieved by a common judgment and order dated 1.7.2002, passed in complaint case no.414 of 1999 and case no.415 of 1999, the appellants Life Insurance Corporation of India and 2 others have preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned orders are arbitrary, perverse and are bad in the eye of law. They were delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind, on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise, the appellants will suffer irreparable financial loss.
(3)From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complaint Sri Sunder Singh Yadav (brother of the deceased/insured) took a Life Insurance Policy: 'Bima Kiran with profits' bearing no.560207132 under Table and Term 111-25 for a sum assured Rs.3 lacs on 28.3.1998 in the name of his brother Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav (deceased insured), the quarterly premium of which was Rs.885.00 only. He again took a "Life Insurance Policy with Profits and Accident Benefit" bearing no.560203658 under Table and Term 14-35 for a sum assured Rs.2 lacs on 6.4.1998 in his brother's name, the quarterly premium of which was Rs.1,432.00 only. The policy bonds were issued on 27.5.1998 and 4.7.1998 respectively.
From perusal of the records, it further transpires that the Life Assured Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav expired on 9.10.1998 due to "Typhoid and High Fever". Consequently, two separate claims, pertaining to the aforesaid policies, were filed alongwith necessary documents by Shri Sunder Singh Yadav (Nominee/ brother). Since the matter related to an early death of policy holder, therefore, an enquiry was conducted in which signatures of the insured were got compared with the signature of the respondent/complainant by a Hand Writing Expert who found some "element of disguise" in the signatures and observed that the signatures appearing in the proposal and the signatures of Sri Sunder Singh Yadav had similarity in many respects. On the basis of aforesaid Hand Writing Expert's Report, both the (4) claims were repudiated by a common order dated 31.8.1999. An enquiry was also initiated against the Agent of the LIC (in which admittedly he was exonerated subsequently).
Aggrieved by this repudiation, the respondent/ complainant Shri Sunder Singh Yadav engaged an independent Hand Writing Expert who on the basis of writings, habits, characteristics and formation of letters observed that the signatures of the deceased/insured Mahendra Singh Yadav appearing in the proposal differ from the signatures of Sri Sunder Singh Yadav and therefore, were not forged by Shri Sunder Singh or anyone else. Cogent reasons for this observation were given. Thereafter, complaint case nos.414 of 1999 and 415 of 1999 were filed by Shri Sunder Singh Yadav for redressal of his grievances.
The Forum below, after hearing the parties was pleased to hold that the respondent/complainant did not forge the signatures of his deceased brother Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav. It also held that the documents relating to Medical Examination carried the Mark of Identification of the deceased-insured and the same was certified by the Medical Officer who conducted the examination. Admittedly, Departmental Enquiry initiated against the Agent of the Corporation ended in his favour. The Enquiry Report has been withheld by the Appellant LIC for no cogent reason. The Forum below, after considering all facts, circumstances and evidence on record allowed both the complaints by means of impugned order dated (5) 1.7.2002 and directed the appellant LIC to pay the amount under insurance with 10% interest from 1.1.1999 i.e. from the date it fell due. It also directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.2,000.00 as compensation and ordered that if the appellants failed to pay awarded amount within 45 days from the date of order then the entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% thereafter till full and final payment.
Aggrieved by this judgment and order, two separate appeals have been preferred. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the life assured Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav had 2 Life Insurance Policies bearing no.560207132 under Table and Term 111-25 for a sum assured Rs.3 lacs and Policy bearing no.560203658 under Table and Term 14-35 for a sum assured Rs.2 lacs. The insured Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav expired on 9.10.1998. Therefore, two separate claims were filed by the nominee/brother for payment of the amount under insurance. There is no dispute that the Policy Holder died on 9.10.1998 due to "Typhoid and High Fever" and intimation of the same was given to the appellant/ Insurance Company in time. There is no dispute to the fact that before accepting the policy, the insured was subjected to medical examination by a Medical Officer duly authorized by the Corporation. The Medical Practitioner has certified that the deceased- insured Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav appeared before him in person and was medically examined by him. He also certified that the (6) insured Mahendra Singh Yadav signed before him. The Medical Report carried his mark of identification i.e. scar mark on the right foot below the ankle joint. It is also an admitted fact that the beneficiary Sri Sunder Singh Yadav do not carry the same mark of identification.
During the course of arguments, the respondent/ complainant submitted that the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the Agent who introduced and identified the Policy Holder was dropped and he was exonerated from the charge. This also proves that there was no forgery on the part of the respondent/complainant. Had there been any impersonation or mala-fide in identification or introduction then certainly the Agent would not have been exonerated. We, however, refrain to express any further opinion in this regard in the absence of the Enquiry Report.
The appellant got the signatures of the insured compared with that of the signature of the claimant without any cogent reason and by ignoring the certificate of the Medical Officer and the Report of the Agent concerned. The appellants also ignored the best piece of evidence i.e. the mark of identification in the body of the insured. The Hand Writing Expert of the LIC submitted his report on the basis of surmises and conjectures and observed that the signatures carried some "element of disguise". On the basis of this report, the claims were repudiated. We have meticulously gone through the relative positioning, sizing, spacing, writing skill, (7) quality of strokes, alignment of letters and designs of the same in the signatures appearing at various places of proposal and medical examination to that of the signatures of the claimant and are of the considered opinion that the signatures of the respondent/ complainant and the signatures of the deceased (available in the proposal form as well as in the Medical Examiner's Confidential Report) differ widely and were not signed by the same person. The report of the Hand Writing Expert submitted by M/s Documents Scientific Investigation Bureau is certainly more reliable as the Expert has given cogent reasons for his findings. The Expert M/s Documents Scientific Investigation Bureau on the basis of writings, habits, characteristics and formation of letters has given a definite opinion that the signatures appearing in the proposal as well as in the Medical Officer's Confidential Report differ with the signatures of the claimant and were, therefore, not signed by the same person. The Forum below took all facts, circumstances and evidence on record and has given its reasoned findings. It suffers from no irregularity and illegality.
It has also observed that the Medical Examiner's Confidential Report not only carried the mark of identification of the insured but also other details which admittedly differ from the claimant. Apart from the mark of identification, there was difference in heights, chest expansion, weight and girth of abdomen. The Medical Officer has categorically stated that he had examined the insured and the insured had signed before him. This fact has not been challenged by the appellants.
(8)The claims were repudiated on the basis of "element of disguise" without affording any opportunity of hearing to the claimant and therefore, the same was not only unjustified but was certainly against the established principles of Audi Alteram Partem. The Expert, engaged by the Insurance Company did not follow the standard procedure of examination and failed to follow the established guidelines diligently relating to handwriting examination while submitting his report and therefore, repudiation on the basis of the same, ignoring the Medical Officer's Certificate and mark of identification of the insured, certainly amounted to gross misfeasance in public office. The Medical Officer in his Medical Examiner's Report dated 29.5.1998 has reported that:
"I hereby certify that I have, this day, examined the above life to be assured personally. In private, recorded in my own hand (1) the true and correct findings (ii) the answers to question No. ... as ascertained the person examined.
I declare that the person examined signed (affixed his/her thump impression) in the space earmark below, in my presence and that I am not related to him/her or the Agent or the Development Officer.
The report carries identification mark i.e. scar mark on the right foot below the ankle joint. His heights, chest expansion, weight, girth of abdomen, Blood Pressure, Heart Rate etc. have also been recorded and this certificate also carries the name and signature of the Introducer. The appellants/Insurance Company has miserably failed to take into consideration this vital piece of evidence. Admittedly, (9) the enquiry initiated against the Agent who introduced and identified the insured to the Corporation has ended in favour of the charged official. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the Forum below is based on facts, circumstances and evidence on record. There is no irregularity or illegality in the same and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Consequently, both the appeals fail.
ORDER The Appeal No.1872 of 2002: Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav arising out of the complaint case no.414 of 1999 and Appeal no.1878 of 2002: Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav arising out of the complaint case no.415 of 1999 are dismissed with costs and the judgment and order dated 1.7.2002 is hereby confirmed. Copy of this order be provided to the parties as per rules.
The original judgment be kept in the leading Appeal No. 1872 of 2002 and its certified copy be kept in the record of Appeal No.1878 of 2002.
(A.K. Bose) (Sanjai Kumar) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II Court No.3 [HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar] MEMBER