Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 178 (CHH)

LIC OF INDIA v. LALITNARAYAN SAHU

2004-09-27

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGRAWAL, VEENA MISRA

body2004
ORDER V.K. Agrawal, President : 1. This appeal, under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 27-2-2004 in complaint No. 109/ 2003 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon directing the appellant/insurer to pay assured sum under the Life Insurance Policy to the complainant. 2. Undisputably, the deceased Smt. Devaki Bai had obtained a policy for assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the appellant. The said policy was issued on 27-3-2002 and was to mature on 28-3-2090. The complainant/ respondent No.1 Lalit Narayan, undisputably, is the nominee under the policy. The insured Devaki Bai died on 29-11-2002 upon which the complainant/ respondent no. 1 laid claim with the appellant for payment of the assured sum. However, as the complainant's claim was repudiated by the appellant, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. 3. The complaint was resisted by the appellant. It was averred that the deceased insured had obtained a policy by misrepresentation or fraud by suppressing her real age. It was averred in the above context that though in the proposal form, the deceased insured mentioned her date of birth as 05-07-55, but on investigation the age of the deceased was found to be 65 years. Hence the claim was repudiated on account of misrepresentation about her age. 4. The District Forum in the impugned order held that the repudiation as above was not proper. It was held that the documents on the basis of which the age was being doubted by the appellant were not reliable and thus insurer has failed to prove that there was any fraud or misrepresentation by the deceased. 5. The counsel for the parties were heard. Record is perused. 6. It is not in dispute that in proposal form the deceased mentioned that her date of birth was 05-05-55 and thus she was aged about 47 years on the date of submission of proposal form on 27-03-2002. The learned counsel for the appellant's insurer submitted that in the identification card which is allegedly issued in 1991. the photocopy of which has been filed on the record of the District Forum, the age of the deceased insured was mentioned as 50 year. Therefore, the age of the deceased at the time, of submission of proposal form in March 2002 was about 62 years. 7. the photocopy of which has been filed on the record of the District Forum, the age of the deceased insured was mentioned as 50 year. Therefore, the age of the deceased at the time, of submission of proposal form in March 2002 was about 62 years. 7. It may be noticed that the deceased insured was illiterate and used to put her thumb impression. It is not clear as to who filled up the date of birth of the insured in the said identification card. It is also noticed that the age of the deceased has not been mentioned in the said card. It is only mentioned that she was aged 50 years. The age of the son of the deceased as mentioned in the said card was 16 years: it is also not clear as to on which date the card was issued. Moreover, who filled up the above information and the basis of the said information cannot be ascertained. No material in the above regard has been placed on record by the appellant/insurer. 8. In view of the above, said photocopy of the identification card cannot be relied upon for accepting the date of birth of the deceased insured, nor does it show that the age of the deceased insured in 2002 was 65 years as has been averred by the appellant. There is no other material to show that the age recorded in the proposal form by the deceased/insured was wrong. 9. It may also be mentioned here, that the insurer is expected to verify the statement made by the insured in the proposal form before accepting the proposal and issuance of policy. Moreover, the insurer cannot be permitted to repudiate the policy on flimsy grounds, or in a mechanical manner, without adequate basis or justification for doing so. 10. Hence, we find that the repudiation of complainant's claim was not proper. The learned District Forum, therefore, was justified in directing payment of the assured sum to the complainant/respondent no. 1. We find no reason for interference in the impugned order. This appeal without being any substance is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.