ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, POSTAL SERVICE & ANR. vs BASTA RAM S/O. SH. KHETA RAM

This instant revision petition is filed against the impugned order dated 11.5.2016 passed in First appeal No. 67 of 2016 by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur.

The relevant brief facts in the complaint are that the complainant''s wife Smt. Kesidevi took a Rural Postal Life Insurance for sum assured of Rs. 1 lakh from the village post office, Hadvecha, District Barmer. She paid monthly premium of Rs.583/- from March, 2008 to June, 2012. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, Kesidevi died on 7.10.2012 due to high fever. The claim was made by her husband/complainant to the OP. It was repudiated by the OP on the ground that at the time of taking the insurance policy, the insured had falsely declared her age as 40 years and declared her date of birth as 15.7.1968.

The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Barmer against the repudiation of claim done by OP. The District Forum, after appreciating the evidence and relevant documents, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs. 1 lakh as per the insurance policy claim with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony alongwith Rs.1,500/- as litigation charges.

Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP preferred first appeal before the State Commission, which appeal was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition aroused.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP at the admission stage, perused the Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy, its terms and conditions and the evidence on record.

The question before us is ''whether the OP is justified in rejecting the claim on the basis of age declared by the deceased insured and whether it was a material concealment?''

It is pertinent to note that the policy was taken in the village post office. Smt. Kesidevi (insured) resident of Hadvecha village, was illiterate. The proposal form was filled by the agent wherein, she declared her age 40 years and the date of birth as 15.7.1968. As per the contention of OP, the ration card reveals the age of policy holder as 54 years on 14.4.2001. Therefore, the policy holder''s age was 61 years at the time of taking the policy i.e. March 2008, but she showed her age as 40 years. It was a false submission.

We are quite surprised about procedure adopted by OP. It is pertinent to note that in presence of agent of OP, the insured person filled the proposal form and submitted it to agent or any official in the post office. If the age difference of 20 years is falsely made by the insured, it is quite obvious that with closed eyes, OPs received and accepted the proposal form submitted by the deceased. Any prudent person can judge the approximate age of individual, there may be error of 1 or 2 years. In the instant case, there was 20 years difference of age which cannot be missed. Further to note that, deceased insured underwent medical checkup from the doctors, thus, it is unbelievable that, the doctor also will be misled by such misrepresentation or submission made of any person, and failed to notice age of insured.

We do not agree with the unflappable submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the State Commission which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.