BABU SINGH vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD

-HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 5. 1. 2001 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Orig. Case No. 53 of 1995 dismissing the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant for seeking insurance claim of Rs. 6. 00 lakh against the "jeevan Mitra" Policy No. 200868491 under Plan Table 88. Brief Facts: The complainant''s/appellant''s son Ramendra Singh Jaudon allegedly applied for LIC policy under Jeevan Mitra Policy under Plan Table No. 88 on 28th March, 1995 for a period of 30 years. On 2. 4. 1995, the insured, Ramendra Singh met with an accident and died on the spot. Though FIR was lodged on the same day but the claim was made on 17. 5. 1995. The complainant claimed the insurance amount of Rs. 2 lakh and also accident benefits of Rs. 4. 00 lakh as per the provisions of the Plan Table No. 88. After making the inquiry, the LIC failed to decide the matter. Ultimately, a complaint was filed.

During the pendency of the case, the LIC rejected the claim of the complainant/appellant on the ground that the deceased had not himself paid the premium and so there was not a valid contract between the LIC and the insured and intimated him on 5. 1. 1999 accordingly. In the light of the above, the complaint was amended.

THE LIC contested the claim and alleged that a fraud was played by some miscreants by obtaining the policy fraudulently. On 28. 3. 1995, collection receipt No. 35805241 for Rs. 3,913 was originally issued by the LIC office in the name of Shri Pooranchand Agarwal. This receipt was subsequently altered in the name of Vasudeo Prasad Gupta who obtained the insurance proposal of the deceased. Out of Rs. 3,913, an amount of Rs. 1,707 was adjusted towards policy No. 200868491 for the insurance of Shri Ramendra Singh Jaudon and the balance amount was refunded to Vasudeo Prasad Gupta, the agent Vasudeo Prasad Gupta was the person who verified the age of Ramendra Singh Jaudon. Suspecting information furnished, the LIC issued several letters to the complainant/appellant to furnish certain information, but the complainant failed to do so. The age and the qualification of Ramendra Singh was disputed. It was also suspected that the policy was not signed by Ramendra Singh and the aforesaid receipt was manipulated. The State Commission took the view that the policy was not obtained by committing fraud; Ramendra Singh was not eligible for obtaining Insurance policy under plan mentioned in Table 88.

WE have heard the learned Counsel and gone through the record. As regards the genuineness of signature of Ramendra Singh on the proposal of the policy, the opposite party/lic relied upon the reports of Pt. Ashok Kashyap, International Expert and Shri C. T. Servate, Addl. Government Examiner of Questioned Documents to Government of M. P. about the genuineness of the signatures. The consultants had given opinion against the genuineness of the signature of the deceased on the proposal form to take the policy. The State Commission rightly observed that both the experts had explained at length that the signatures on the proposal for insurance and also on the medical examination form are of the same and single person, but when these signatures are compared with the admitted signatures of Ramendra Singh available in the school record (which he signed to obtain the mark-sheet) they did not tally. Mr. C. T. Servate, the Hand Writing Expert has also given the opinion that the signatures on the paper are not of Ramendra Singh, but they all are the writing of Vasudeo Prasad Gupta. Thus it is clear from the reports of two Hand Writing Experts namely, Pt. Ashok Kashyap and C. T. Servate and the opinion of Suri Security Service and Consultation, that in the proposal for getting an insurance policy Ramendra Singh has not signed but it is Vasudeo Prasad Gupta who manipulated the signatures of Ramendra Singh in all the documents. If the two Hand Writing Experts had proved that the signatures on the proposal form were not of Ramendra Singh but they were all in the handwriting of Vasudeo Prasad Gupta, it becomes evident that it was Vasudeo Prasad Gupta who manipulated signatures of Ramendra Singh in all the documents.

IT was undisputed that "the deceased was a student of B. A. 1st year as per proposal dated 28-30. 3. 1995 and policy under plan 88 was not to be granted to non-earning lives, including students". If it is true the complainant would be entitled to get double accidental death.

WE have also gone through the various documents on record and the documents, which have been filed by the complainant/appellant and the photocopies of the disputed signatures. Seeing the various documents on record, we feel that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Munimahesh Patel, IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC)=vi (2006) SLT 436=2006 CTJ 1073 (SC) (CP), this complaint of the appellant is bound to be dismissed leaving the appellant to approach Civil Court if so desired. It would be useful to reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in Munimahesh Patel (supra) case. It has been stated that: "11. Proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that Commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i. e. , proposal forms) produced by the appellant.

The Commission having accepted that there was wrong declaration of the nature of occupation of the person insured should not have granted the relief in the manner done.

The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exerise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of Law and not by the Commission. "

Since there would be reasonable basis to suspect fraud on the part of the LIC, it is not possible to say that there would be any reason to hold that the opposite party/respondent were deficient in rendering service. In such circumstances, we feel it appropriate that in view of the dispute about the genuineness of the signatures of the deceased on the proposal form for obtaining policy, eligibility of the deceased insured to take the policy under Table Plan 88 as well as close proximity of date of proposal 28-30. 3. 1995 and death on 2. 4. 1995 in this matter in view of the complex factual position which has arisen, the matter should be left to be decided by an appropriate Forum like Civil Court.

For the aforesaid reason, we dismiss the complaint as well as appeal. However, the complainant/appellant shall be at liberty to approach the Civil Court in case so advised and may take advantage of the observations made in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P. S. G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)= (1995) 3 SCC 583, to seek exclusion of the time spent before the Consumer Fora under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Appeal dismissed.