Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Bahadur Singh

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.8.1998 passed by the District Forum, Almora wherein a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) was allowed to the complainant on the death of his father who was insured by the appellant, Life Insurance Corporation of India.

THE brief facts of the case are that Sh. Puran Singh Bora was insured for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only). THE amount of premium was regularly paid. THE complainant Sh. Bahadur Singh is his nominee. On 16.1.1995 Sh. Puran Singh died and on his death after completing the entire formalities, the complainant lodged the claim but he was paid nothing. He asked for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) plus Rs. 36,000/- (Rupees thirty-six thousand only) as bonus. THE opposite party contested the claim and admitted the death of the insured on 16.1.1995. It is alleged that on 20.5.1996 the claim has been repudiated. It is further said that the complainant has knowingly suppressed his actual age at the time of taking the policy. THEre is difference in the age of the deceased as given in different papers and at the time of taking the policy on 30.12.1991 he was directed to file the copy of the school certificate giving his correct age within one month, in any case he should have filed it within six months. It is the case of the Insurance Company that due to this false declaration of age, the claim has been rejected. The insurance is admitted. It is further admitted that the insurance was done on 30.12.1991. The policy is also on the record and it is not said in this policy that the date of birth of the insured is not admitted and it requires proof. The policy has been issued on 18.2.1992 after about two months of the proposal. Had the complainant not given true evidence of his age, his proposal should have been rejected, no policy should have at all been given to him. Even if it is presumed that within six months he should have given the correct proof of his age then also if the policy has been issued and the complainant has not given the correct proof of his age then also no policy could have been issued under the table in which it has been issued, it was obligatory on the part of the Insurance Company to have cancelled the policy. The insured died on 16.1.1995 after about four years. The premium was being realized without any objection and it is on the death of the insured that his grave is being dug to make a post-mortem of his policy. All these inquiries should have been made at the very outset when the policy was issued.

It is not a case of the Insurance Company that to a person like the insured no policy could have been issued or he was a person who could not have been insured. It is the case of the Insurance Company here that under this table the policy could not have been given to the insured had he disclosed his correct age. Then again to revert to the same argument that where was the bar for the Insurance Company to have inquired about the actual age of the insured in his lifetime itself and to have amended the policy or to have cancelled the present policy and to have issued a fresh one under different table. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the insured was without any age. After all he was having some age and he has got no interest in hiding the actual age and to disclose the false age to get the policy. He was a countryside little literate man not knowing these complications that no policy could be issued under this table, it could have been issued under a different table, therefore, there was no question of giving the incorrect age. Ordinarily where there is no High School Certificate or where a person is not so educated and advanced, at every inquiry he speaks different age. Today if he is asked what is his age, he will say 40 years, tomorrow he will say 50 years, the third day he will say 45 years. The man gives his age by estimation. Not only this wheresoever he was asked to give his age, ordinarily an illiterate person becomes hesistant and the person enquiring the age himself writes the age by estimation. Go to the Railway counter, ask for reservation, the person writing the slip will give some age by appearance. In the Court go to give the statement, the Reader will go on to ask the age, the witness will not tell, some estimate age shall be spoken by the Lawyers, by the Reader and the Court and that age shall be written. We have seen the electoral rolls where the age of the father has been written 40 years, and that of the son is 60 years. In India in villages the age of a countryside man is not a relevant factor to be very accurate on this and such is the case of the present insured. In the death certificate the age has been written 52 years, it has been issued by Pradhan, Gram Sabha. It is not said that on what basis he wrote this age, at least the insured died on that particular date, it is not he who has informed his age. Age in the School Certificate is written as 10.8.1949. The Forum disbelieved it on the ground that it is of some Puran Singh and does not appear to that of the complainant. This finding may not be correct but here also there is no evidence that who has got his date of birth recorded in the School Certificate, at least the insured must have been of the tender age when his name was written in the school. The certificate also has been issued by the Principal on 27.7.1995 and this is not the evidence of the admission register. In the Kutumb Register the date of birth of the insured has been written as 20.9.1949 and the same date of birth has been given in the proposal form as well. There is nothing for which this date of birth should be disbelieved. The claim of the complainant was not such which should have been rejected on these formal grounds. We find no force in this appeal and the appeal is to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.