RAJRANI Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is complainant's appeal against the order dated 27.1.2007 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, dismissing the consumer complaint No. 97 / 2005, on the ground that the complainant's husband late Sh. Sai Dass Banga had suppressed material fact by misrepresenting his age as 50 years instead of real age 58 -59 years in purchasing the insurance policy of Rs. 50,000 on 28.12.2002 and the contract of insurance, being as such, vitiated for the said reason, the complainant was not entitled to insurance amount on account of death of her husband on 4.12.2003 within a period of less than one year from the date of the purchase of the policy.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the appeal, it need to be pointed out at the outset the appeal lack merit and is liable to be dismissed. The reasons are that in the claim form, the life assured gave out his age as 50 years on 22.12.2002 and disclosed his date of birth as 19.5.1953, to justify the representation as regards the said age of 50 years. Life assured expired in less than one year on 4.12.2003 and claim preferred by his widow the complainant was repudiated on 30.11.2004 on the ground of suppression of the material fact as regards the correct age of the life assured, which was on inquiry, found to be about 64 years on the date of submission of the proposal form. Although the District Forum observed that the age of the life assured was about 58 -59 years, but the fact is that on the date of submission of the proposal form, the life assured was about 63 years old, as is evidenced by extract of his family register duly maintained by the Gram Panchayat, Alak Deva, Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar (Paper No. 49), correctness of which was not disputed on behalf of the complainant. In the family register, the year of the birth of the life assured was mentioned as 1939 and complete entries were made about the birth years of his wife, the complainant and their six children and one daughter -in -law. In the past, life assured had never taken any policy of insurance and as submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company, it could safely be accepted that the misrepresentation as regards the age by the life assured, was motivated by his desire to purchase insurance policy while he was in his early sixties and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the reason for this motivation, was his illness, which probably resulted in his death within a year of purchasing the insurance policy.

(3.) COPY of the Agents Manual placed on record by the Insurance Company, would indicate that certain restrictions were imposed in taking the proposal for insurance policy from the persons having age more than 50 years. The proposals were not be accepted for such a period, on expiry of which, the person proposing for the policy, would attain age of about 65 years. In this case, the insurance policy of 14 -15 years period was purchased and this would indicate that the life assured aged about 63 years, would have crossed the age of 78 years on the date of maturity of the policy, contrary to the scheme laid down by the Insurance Company. The circumstances, thus, indicate that to overcome the restriction, misrepresentation as regards the age was made by the life assured and there can be no gain saying that it amounted to suppression of the material fact, which definitely had bearing on the risk to be undertaken by the insurer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant that since the life assured was not an educated person and was only able to make his signatures, the age of 50 years must have been disclosed by him by mere estimation without any malice and motive to obtain policy of insurance. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the proposal form is in Devnagari script and it was also filled in that script, which rule out the possibility that the contents of the document were not known to the life assured and he merely signed on the proposal form without understanding its contents and other information to be disclosed in it. In other words, the suppression of the fact as regards the correct age, clearly appear to be the result of conscious operation of mind of the life assured and that he had knowingly disclosed his incorrect age as 50 years to purchase policy of insurance in a fraudulent manner. When such is the state of things, the complainant cannot be permitted to avail any benefit on the basis of the argument canvassed that the insurer has had an opportunity of eleven months to make an inquiry about the age of the life assured and to reject the proposal or annul the contract of insurance before the death of the life assured.