Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Mahendra Kumar

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 28.1.2003 in Complaint No. 29/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambikapur, District Sarguja ( hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing the appellant to pay to the complainant the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest and cost as nominee, in the LIC policy obtained by the respondent''s father Tulsi Ram.

THE relevant facts no longer in dispute stated in brief are : that the insured Tulsi Ram had obtained a Money Back LIC policy from appellant. He had filled up the proposal form on 23.10.2000. THE policy was to subsist during the period from 28.10.2000 to 28.10.2020. It is also not in dispute that the premium of the said policy was duly paid by the deceased. THE assured amount under the said policy was Rs. 50,000/-. It is further not in dispute that the deceased expired on 21.1.2001. Undisputably the insured Tulsi Ram was illiterate and had put his thumb impression on the proposal form. The said proposal form appears to have been filled by the agent/officer of the appellant. The said proposal was duly accepted by the appellant insurer and policy document was issued in his favour. In the said proposal form the age of the insured was mentioned as 45 years.

The complainant lodged with the appellant claim for payment of the assured sum payable under the said policy, obtained by his father. However, the claim was repudiated by the appellant insurer on the sole ground that the age disclosed by the deceased insured in his proposal form as 45 years, was incorrect, and that he was in fact aged about 68 years, as has been mentioned in the letter of repudiation dated 31.3.2001. The complainant felt aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim, hence he filed complaint before the District Forum.

THE complaint was resisted by the appellant. It was alleged that the insured has disclosed his age as 45 years in his proposal form. He also disclosed his age as 45 years before the Doctor who examined him on behalf of the appellant insurer. However, during investigation of the claim laid by the complaint before the appellant insurer, they discovered that the age of the deceased was much more and was recorded as 62 years in the voters'' list, copy of which has been placed on the record of District Forum. THE claim was accordingly repudiated by the appellant insurer. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint, rejecting the reason as above for repudiation of the claim of the complainant/respondent, and accordingly the learned District Forum directed payment of assured sum to the complainant, by the appellant insurer.

LEARNED Counsel for appellant submitted that it was obligatory for the insured to have disclosed his correct age. It was submitted that the voters'' list indicates that the age of the deceased insured was 62 years, while it was disclosed as 45 years by the deceased while submitting his proposal form. It was, therefore, urged that there was material suppression of fact by the deceased and the appellant insurer was, therefore, justified in repudiating the claim as above. None appeared for the respondent at the time of final hearing. It may be noticed that repudiation letter dated 31.3.2001 sent to the complainant by the appellant insurer states that the deceased had in his proposal form disclosed his age to be 45 years while in fact he was aged about 68 years at the time of submission of proposal form. It may be noted that the proposal form was filled up by the agent of the appellant insurer. The deceased was illiterate person and has put his thumb impression on the proposal form. The doctor of the appellant insurer had also admittedly examined him and in the examination report also his age was recorded as 45 years.

THE appellant insurer, however, disputed the age as above only on the basis of the age as recorded in the voters'' list. Copy of the said voters list was placed on the record of the District Forum. Copy as put on the record is a photo copy and the age of Tulsiram therein is written in ink as 62. It is not clear who has written the age in ink in the voters'' list. Even if the entry in the voter''s list was as above, yet the photo copy of the voters'' list as above would not be a proof of the real age of the deceased. THE appellant insurer has not produced any other evidence to establish the age of the deceased insured to show that the age as indicated by the deceased insured in his proposal form and as accepted by the appellant insurer, was not correct.

AS noted earlier, the deceased was illiterate person and the agent of the appellant insurer filled up the proposal form as averred in the written version of the appellant insurer. Moreover, appellant''s doctor also examined him and recorded the same age as above. Therefore, merely on the basis of voters'' list appellant insurer could not dispute the correctness of the age as disclosed by the deceased in his proposal form. Had there been any objection about the age of the deceased, the appellant should have made due inquiry about it, while accepting his proposal. The appellant does not appear to have done so. Therefore, after death of the deceased insured, the complainant''s claim under the said policy could not be defeated/repudiated only on the basis of age allegedly recorded in the voters'' list. Reference in the above context may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others v. Smt. Asha Goel and Another, I (2001) SLT 89=AIR 2001 SC 549, wherein it was observed that approach of the Corporation in the matter of repudiation of a policy issued by it should be one of extreme care and caution. It should not be dealt with in a mechanical and routine manner. In the instant case it is clear that the appellant has repudiated the claim on flimsy ground and the appellant insurer has thus abdicated its duty as insurer. Repudiation of the respondent''s claim by appellant-insurer was done in a mechanical and rather callous manner and without justification. Such attitude is deplorable and should have been avoided. Being a public undertaking created to subserve social objective, the appellant insurer was expected to act with greater sense of responsibility while considering the claim under the insurance policy. The learned District Forum, therefore, justifiably rejected the stand of the appellant and rightly held that the rejection of the complainant''s claim by the appellant, amounted to deficiency in service by it. The said finding is affirmed.

This appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall bear its own cost of this appeal and shall also pay that of the respondent, which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only. Appeal dismissed.