Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 277 (UTT)

BRANCH MANAGER, LIC v. RAM KUMAR

2006-06-01

IRSHAD HUSSAIN, LAXMI SINGH

body2006
ORDER Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain — This is insurer’s appeal against the order dated 16.08.2001 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar. 2. Insured Sh. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sh. Lacchi Ram, R/o Village Sunehara, P.O. Roorkee, District Haridwar took a policy of insurance on 28.02.1998 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and paid Rs. 696/- towards premium. Sh. Sanjay Kumar died on 26.06.1998 on account of snake bite. His brother - complainant Sh. Ram Kumar Preferred claim which was repudiated by the insurer on the ground that the life assured gave incorrect information about his age and that the insured had not even attained the age of 18 years when the policy of insurance was taken by him. The insurer, however, conveyed to the complainant that only the premium amount paid by the life assured is payable in this case. Alleging deficiency in service by reason of repudiation of the claim, the complaint was preferred before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted on the ground which was taken to repudiate the claim. 3. Parties adduced evidence before the District Forum and insurer placed on record certificate dated 03.03.2001 (Paper No. 23) issued by the Headmaster, Primary School, Sunehara, Vidhan Sabha Constituency, Roorkee, District Haridwar to show that the date of birth of the life assured was 08.04.1980 meaning thereby the life assured had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of taking the insurance policy. 4. The District Forum did not attach due importance to the certificate on the grounds that there is some interpolation in the month “3” of the date 03.03.2001 mentioned below the signatures of Headmaster of the school Sri Uma Dutt and that the affidavit of the Headmaster was not filed towards proof of the certificate issued by him and accordingly went on to reject the defence plea that the claim was rightly repudiated as there was no valid contract between the parties. The District Forum rather opined that the insurer made deficiency in service by reason of repudiation of the claim preferred under the policy of insurance in question. The complaint was, therefore, allowed and the insurer was directed to pay the insured sum of Rs. 10,000/- together with accident benefit and bonus; Rs. 2,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as expenses of the litigation to the complainant within one month of the impugned order. The complaint was, therefore, allowed and the insurer was directed to pay the insured sum of Rs. 10,000/- together with accident benefit and bonus; Rs. 2,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as expenses of the litigation to the complainant within one month of the impugned order. Aggrieved, the insurer preferred this appeal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and have carefully perused the material on record in the light of the legal aspects of the case. 6. The question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether the life assured gave incorrect information about his age at the time of taking the insurance policy and there being no valid contract between the parties by reason of the life assured having not attained the age of 18 years at the time of insurance, the insurer was justified in repudiating the claim. 7. Certificate dated 03.03.2001 (Paper No. 23) was issued by the Headmaster of the school in which Sh. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sh. Lacchi Ram, R/o Village Sunehara, P.O. Roorkee, District Haridwar was admitted and his age was as such recorded in the school register. The date of birth of Sh. Sanjay Kumar was mentioned as 08.04.1980 and necessary entry was available at page 337 of the admission register No. 1173 of the Primary School. These facts are duly incorporated in the certificate which was issued by Sh. Uma Dutt, Headmaster of the school on 03.03.2001. Since the insurer obtained certificate from the school, it was rightly proved and got connected by the averment of the affidavit of Sh. N.K. Rai (Paper Nos. 20 to 22), Senior Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Learned Counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that in view of the affidavit of a Senior Officer of the insurer, there was no legal requirement to file the affidavit of the Headmaster of the school who had issued the certificate showing the date of birth of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, the life assured. Learned Counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that in view of the affidavit of a Senior Officer of the insurer, there was no legal requirement to file the affidavit of the Headmaster of the school who had issued the certificate showing the date of birth of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, the life assured. Further, by any interpolation in the month of the date 03.03.2001 below the signatures of the Headmaster on the certificate, no undue advantage was required to be taken either by the Headmaster who issued the certificate or the insurer and therefore, we have no hesitation in observing that the District Forum tried to take out a mountain out of a mole hill by observing that there appear some interpolation in the month of the date mentioned below the signatures of the Headmaster of the school. By reason of this, the evidentiary import of the certificate was not at all minimized or assailed and that there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to dispute the date of birth of the life assured i.e. 08.04.1980 as mentioned in the certificate which was issued on the basis of the entry of the admission register of the school. We are convinced that the District Forum did not take reasonable view of the matter and made an incorrect observation in regard to the authenticity and genuineness of the said certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school. 8. It shall not be out of place to mention here that the appellant has taken care to bring on record of the appeal another copy of the certificate issued on 19.02.1998 (Paper No. 37) by the then Headmaster of the school named as Sh. Faggan Singh and this certificate also confirm that the date of birth of the life assured as entered in the school admission register was 08.04.1980. This certificate in fact lent credence to the above inference that the certificate issued by the Headmaster on 03.03.2001 was also genuine and it disclosed correct date of birth of the life assured as was entered in the school admission register. These certificates also in turn indicate that the life assured was not altogether an illiterate person. He had attended his school and knew very well as to what was his date of birth as recorded in the school record. These certificates also in turn indicate that the life assured was not altogether an illiterate person. He had attended his school and knew very well as to what was his date of birth as recorded in the school record. In a situation like this, any argument that life assured was not made aware as to disclose his correct date of birth in the proposal form may not be of any avail. In fact the life assured being sufficiently a literate person knowingly gave incorrect information about his age in the proposal form (Paper No. 40) in which the date of birth was mentioned as 08.01.1980. A bare perusal of the same also reveal that some interpolation was made in the month of date of birth and probably with a view to show that the life assured had attained the age of 18 years when the proposal was submitted on 18.02.1997. The life assured had in fact not attained the age of 18 years at the time of submitting the proposal form for taking the policy of insurance and there can be no doubt that the life assured gave incorrect information about his age at that time. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the firm view that the insurer was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that the life assured gave incorrect information about his age in the proposal form and that the life assured had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of taking the policy of insurance. This being the fact, the life assured was not legally entitled to enter into a contract of insurance with the insurer and the same was thus void and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The District Forum fell in error in not taking the facts and the evidence of the case in proper prospective and returned an incorrect finding as stated above. In the face of the facts of the case, the insurer in repudiating the claim rightly arrived to the conclusion that only the premium paid by the life assured was payable to the complainant. 10. In view of above, the answer to the question referred above being in the affirmative and the impugned order of the District Forum being erroneous, the same is liable to be set aside. The appeal is accordingly fit to be allowed. 11. Appeal is allowed. 10. In view of above, the answer to the question referred above being in the affirmative and the impugned order of the District Forum being erroneous, the same is liable to be set aside. The appeal is accordingly fit to be allowed. 11. Appeal is allowed. Order dated 16.08.2001 of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. The insurer is directed to refund the premium paid by the life assured to the complainant within one month of this order. No order as to costs.