SURJAN SINGH SAINI vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

SMT. Gurdev Kaur wife of the complainant had taken an insurance policy, bearing No. 130698132 for Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees One Lac only) sum assured on the life of her minor son Gurmukh Singh. The policy was Money Back (With Profits) Plan under Table No. 95 for a period of 20 years. The said policy was taken from Branch Office, Industrial Branch, Jalandhar City under the supervision and control of opposite party. The insured duly paid the premium during the subsistence of policy. The complainant who is the father of the deceased preferred a claim, but the opposite parry-L.I.C. repudiated its liability on the ground that the insured committed suicide and the claimant was fraudulently trying to suppress the facts and as per conditions of the policy, no amount was payable.

BOTH the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents which resulted in passing the impugned order by the District Forum, Jalandhar. The complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant is before us in appeal against the aforesaid order of the District Forum. We have gone through the records and heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties both on facts and on the legal propositions. Some of the facts are not disputed. The insured died on 18.10.1995. The insurance premium was duly paid to the L.I.C.

In appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated that the complainant''s son Gurmukh Singh was a student on 10+2 Class in Doaba Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Jalandhar and was keeping good health and habits. He was not suffering from any disease. Unfortunately, he died by natural death on 18.10.1995. The appellant submitted the claim before the respondent/opposite party for payment of the sum assured and accrued bonus under the said policy, but the same was illegally declined on the allegation that the life assured had committed suicide within one year of the policy.

LEARNED Counsel for L.I.C. asserted that on investigation, it transpired that it was not a case of natural death but was a case of suicide and the complainant/ appellant was fraudulently trying to suppress it and as per the conditions of the policy, no amount was payable thereunder. The Counsel for the L.I.C. also asserted that there is no provision under the contract with L.I.C. to pay interest to the claimant. No interest can be allowed to the appellant/claimant. In evidence, in support of the claim the complainant-Surjan Singh has filed an affidavit. The opposite party, in evidence, filed an affidavit of Mr. ML. Gupta, Manager, Claim Department, L.I.C, Jalandhar wherein he stated that after conducting thorough claim investigation it has transpired that the life assured had committed suicide in Gurdwara where the deceased was staying as a tenant and the certificate was procured to that effect from the Gurdwara Sahib Authorities on letter head pad (Ex. 0-6) dated 24.9.1996. This certificate bears signatures of Gian Singh, Gurmit Singh and Sukhdev Singh etc. However, these persons gave affidavits which were produced by the complainant himself showing that they had merely signed the certificate. When approached on 24.9.1996 by the officials of the L.I.C. that since the claim was to be passed so they were asked to give statement and certificate, that Gurmukh Singh deceased had committed suicide so that his claim could be settled. These three witnesses now nullify the stand taken by the opposite party-L.I.C. The contention of the L.I.C. that the insured committed suicide cannot be accepted as the affidavit given by Sh. M.L. Gupta, Manager, Claims Department of L.I.C. is based on hearsay. No affidavit of any person has been filed who was living in the vicinity of that area confirming the cause of death of the deceased/insured as alleged -by the opposite party. It may also be observed that no FIR was lodged. The contention is, therefore, repelled.

HON''ble National Commission in New India Insurance Company &Anr. v. P.P. Khanna, II (1997) CPJ 1 (NC)=1997 (2) CPR 22 (NC), has. observed that onus probandi in case of fraudulent suppression of material facts in contract of insurance rests heavily on insurer. L.I.C. has not led direct evidence to prove that Gurmukh Singh insured/deceased committed suicide. If produced, any such witness would have been subjected to test of cross-examination in a Court. L.I.C. has failed to produce any such witness. We are of the view that the plea taken by the opposite party/respondent to justify the non-payment of the claim to the father of the deceased is not substantiated in the eyes of law. Having considered the entire evidence adduced in this case and the facts stated above deficiency in rendering service on the part of the L.I.C. is not paying the insured amount is writ large. We hold accordingly. The complainant is entitled to the insured amount. The complainant is also entitled to compensation as the insured amount was not promptly paid to the complainant. Compensation is granted by way of interest on account of delayed settlement of the claim at the rate of 18% per annum. The contention of Counsel for the L.I.C. that the rate of interest should not be more than 12% cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the State Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Bimla Rani Kapur, 1998 (1) CON.LT 289. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum is set aside. Complaint is allowed. A direction is given to the L.I.C. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees One Lac only) with interest @ 18% p.a. thereon w.e.f. 4 months from the date of submission of the claim till payment. The complainant will get costs of litigation of this Court which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. The directions be complied within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Appeal allowed with cost.