Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd vs Usirikayala Sreenivasa Rao

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 923/2011 Usirikayala Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Met Life India Ins. Co. Ltd. and Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and complaint was allowed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent''s mother Usirikayala Koteswaramma obtained insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/ - from OP/petitioner on 18.11.2008. She died on 9.1.2009 due to renal failure. Claim was lodged with OP which was repudiated by letter dated 4.9.2009 on the ground of wrong disclosure of age of insured. OP sent a cheque of Rs.9369/ - towards refund of policy amount by treating the said policy as void which was not accepted by complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint, admitted issuance of policy and receipt of premium, but submitted that deceased insured mentioned her date of birth as 10.12.1958 and on that basis without medical tests; policy was issued whereas she was of more age as per voter ID, so, policy was void since inception and claim was rightly repudiated. It was further submitted that complainant''s letter disclosed that insured was suffering from kidney problem for the last 10 years and was under regular medication of Dr. T.S. Raja Rao which fact was not disclosed at the time of issuance of policy and she died due to renal failure within 2 months, so, there was no deficiency in repudiation of claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and directed OP to pay Rs.1,80,000/ - with 9% p.a. interest from 11.3.2009 till payment and further allowed compensation of Rs.15,000/ - and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of suppression of correct age policy was issued without medical examination whereas medical examination was required and policy being void, learned District forum rightly dismissed complaint. It was further submitted that on account of suppression of previous disease, claim was rightly repudiated even then learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

LEARNED State Commission observed that claim was repudiated only on the ground of giving false information about age. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of issuance of policy insured was 53 years old as per voter ID, but she declared herself below 50 years to avoid medical examination so policy was void from inception. Perusal of proposal form reveals that deceased declared her date of birth as 10.12.1958 and as per proof required by application form she filed notarised declaration regarding her age. This form does not contain proof of date of birth by voter ID. In such circumstances, only on the basis of age shown in voter ID it cannot be presumed that deceased was 53 years old at the time of taking policy instead of below 50 years, particularly, when ration card issued by the competent authority issued on 21.2.2009 revealed deceased''s age as 50 years. No doubt, this ration card has been issued after death of deceased, but it cannot be presumed that for the purpose of depicting insured below 50 years, this ration card was obtained because this ration card was issued on 21.2.2009, whereas claim was repudiated by letter dated 4.9.2009. Had claim been repudiated prior to issuance of ration card it could have been presumed that ration card was obtained to prove this fact that deceased was below 50 years at the time of taking policy. Except voter ID nothing has been placed by petitioner to substantiate his contention that deceased was above 50 years at the time of taking policy. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in reaching to the conclusion that complainant established that deceased was below 50 years at the time of taking policy.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that deceased suppressed her previous disease, though, she was suffering from kidney problem since last more than 10 years. This argument is devoid of force because firstly, claim has not been repudiated on this ground and secondly, petitioner has failed to prove that deceased was suffering from renal failure since last 10 years. Learned State Commission rightly observed that Dr. T.S. Raja Rao was consulted for renal failure on 4.1.2009 and this disease was diagnosed on 5.1.2009 on account of which, she died on 9.1.2009 when this problem was not known to deceased at the time of submitting proposal form, there was no question of disclosure of this disease.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.