SATYA VERMA vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

APPELLANT has filed this appeal against the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the District Forum, Shimla, in Complaint No. 183/2000.

AT the time of hearing Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned order is not only illegal but is contrary to material on record, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the plea of the Insurance Company that the deceased had not undergone ECG test and someone else impersonated for him was hit by Section 45 of the Insurance Act. Similarly, there was no concealment of any material fact regarding state of health of the deceased much less any mis-statement fraudulently. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Singh on behalf of the respondents. He further urged that this is case of pure and simple fraud committed by the deceased who after getting himself insured was called upon to undergo ECG test. Instead of personally appearing somebody else impersonated for him (the deceased) late Mr. Kanshi Ram. Brief facts of this case need to be briefly noted, are that deceased Mr. Kanshi Ram got himself insured on 25.5.1996 in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000. He died on 6.3.1997. Claim was lodged with the respondents along with necessary information. It was repudiated on 4.12.1999. Whole thrust of the case of the respondent-Insurance Company is, that when the deceased at the time of proposing for the policy was called upon to submit himself for Electrocardiogram (E.C.G.) test, instead of he getting himself medically examined by the doctor, someone else was produced by him. This was done with a view to defraud the respondents. Further, according to Mr. Singh original proposal form and the form after ECG test both were referred to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India. He opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked as A4 and A5 (these are on the original proposal form), did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked A1, A2 and A3, (these are on the form after ECG examination). He has given reasons in support of his opinion.

Basing its defence on the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, an application was filed by the respondents before the District Forum for summoning the said person as witness. This application was resisted on behalf of the appellant and was thus rejected. Respondent-Insurance Company came up in revision petition No. 107/2001. The same was disposed of on 19.3.2002 by this Commission in the following terms : "1. This petition is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, dated 11.9.2001, whereby the application filed by the petitioner (opposite party before the learned Forum below ) for summoning the Assistant Examiner of Questioned Documents, namely, Mr. Mohinder Singh to prove his report which is already on record as part of the evidence on behalf of the petitioner i.e., Annexure R-6 has been dismissed.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have examined the record which has been summoned by us. Suffice it to say at this stage that in case the learned Forum below is of the view that it is not necessary to examine the above mentioned person, then interest of justice also requires that the report purporting to have been issued under his signatures and already on record as part of the evidence on behalf of the petitioner should be taken into consideration while deciding the complaint of the respondent on merits. We have taken this view in the context of the reply filed by the respondent opposing the application moved by the petitioner which has been dismissed by the impugned order. In para-2 of the same, the said application has been opposed as being not maintainable, as according to the respondent, there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act for oral evidence. The evidence, according to her, can only be filed by way of affidavit. We do not wish to pronounce on the merits of this assertion though we are constrained to observe that it is a moot point as to whether oral evidence is permissible or not in the facts and circumstances of a given case, we reiterate that in view of the stand taken in the reply of the respondent to the prayer made in the application of the petitioner, the learned Fourm below will take into consideration Annexure R6 on the record. With these observations, we dispose of this petition."

AFTER passing of the aforesaid order, when matter went back, no material any whatsoever was produced by the appellant to contradict/controvent the opinion of the Handwriting Expert in terms of the order supra. Faced with this situation, Mr. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that it was the duty of the respondents to have proved that it was not the deceased but someone else who had impersonated. At the same time his specific stand was that on both occasions i.e., at the time of filling up of proposal form and at the time of examination i.e., ECG test, it was deceased Kanshi Ram and none else. With a view to buttress this submission Mr. Chauhan wanted to make capital out of reply to legal notice sent by the respondents. In this notice, stand of the Insurance Company was that the deceased had died due to cancer. We are of the view that even from the stand of the respondents in the legal notice, no benefit can be derived in the face of the order passed by this Commission (supra). Appellant could have led evidence to discredit and for not accepting the opinion of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. However, instead of doing so, she contested the respondent''s application to summon the witness for the purpose of proving his opinion wherein above extracted order was passed. It was not disputed on behalf of the parties that this order has attained finality intra parties.

THUS, in the circumstances of this case, there is no escape for reading in evidence the opinion of the Handwriting Expert who has clearly opined that the signatures on original proposal form A4 and A5 are not written by the same person whose signatures are A1 to A3 i.e., on the ECG test form more especially when stand of Mr. Chauhan in this behalf was that it was the deceased who had signed both these documents. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Office will make copy of this order available to the parties free of cost as per rules. Appeal dismissed.