APPEAL NO: 1409/2004



1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Mumbai through Sr.Divisional Manager,

Bhawani Singh Road,P.B.No.65

Jaipur.

2. Br.Manager, LIC of India,

Super Market, Bharatpur.

Opposite parties-appellants


Vs.


Ramsingh

r/o Village Saint Post Pala

Teh. Kumher Distt. Bharatpur.

Complainant-respondent


Date of judgment 3.7.09


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethia-Member


Mr.Anurag Agarwal counsel for the appellants

Mr.Puneet Sharma counsel for the respondent


BY THE STATE COMMISSION


This appeal has been filed by the appellants LIC against order dated 19.6.04 passed by the District Forum, Bharatpur in complaint no. 83/2001 by which the complaint of the complainant

2


respondent was allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 84,000/-, the amount of the policy in question alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 9.2.01, the date on which the complaint was filed and further to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as costs of litigation.


2. It arises in the following circumstances-


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum on 9.2.01 inter alia stating that his wife Kela Devi, now deceased had taken a life insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 84,000/- from the appellants bearing policy no. 191696819 on 20.7.99 for 25 years. It was further stated in the complaint that the deceased had died suddenly on 2.1.2000 and after the death of the deceased claim was preferred by the complainant respondent being the husband and nominee of the deceased before the office of the appellants but that claim was repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 18.1.01 in the following manner -


" With reference to your claim under the above policy on the life of your deceased wife, we have to inform you that we have decided to repudiate the liability under the policy.


The medical examination of proposer, your wife was essential for acceptance of the proposal for assurance. The proposal dated 31.7.99 was got fraudulently completed by submitting false medical examination report in the name of your wife with

3


forged thumb impression.


In view of above the policy contract is void ab-initio and we hereby repudiated the claim and accordingly we are not liable for any payment under the above policy and all moneys that have been paid in consequence thereof belong to us.


In case you are not satisfied with the above decision and feel that we have not considered any particular facts and circumstances in support of your claim, you may sent your representation within a month for reconsideration of your claim to our zonal office addressing- The zonal Manager, LIC of India, Zonal office, Jeevan Bharti, 124 Cannaught Circus, Post box no. 630, New Delhi 110001."



Thereafter the present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellants on 30.3.01 and they have taken the same pleas which were taken by them in the repudiation letter dated 18.1.01. Apart from that it was further stated in the reply that the policy in question was taken by the complainant respondent after playing fraud with the appellants in the manner that in fact the lady who was put for medical examination was different one and not the wife of the complainant respondent and for that it was stated that since the thumb impressions which were found on the proposal form as well as on the medical form do not tally with each other and therefore, a report from the finger

4


print expert Mr.Krishna Charan was also obtained who had stated in point no.3 of his report dated 9.1.01 in the following manner-


" 3. The impression "Q" on medical report is a print recorded from the tip of a finger. The trend of lines in print "S" and "Q" are found different."


and it was prayed that claim was rightly repudiated by the appellants and complaint be dismissed.


After hearing the parties the District Forum, Bharatpur through impugned order dated 19.6.04 had not paid any reliance on the finger print report of Mr. Krishna Charan dated 9.1.01 and had allowed the complaint inter alia holding that -


(i) That since there is an affidavit of Mr.Gulab Chand Sharma who was the agent of the appellants LIC and through him the policy was taken by the deceased and Gulab Chand Sharma had stated in his affidavit that the wife of the complainant respondent was got medically examined and she was the same lady for which the policy was taken.


(ii) That the appellants were not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant respondent and it had amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.


Aggrieved from that order dated 19.6.04 passed by the

5


District Forum, Bharatpur , this appeal has been filed by the appellants.


3. In this appeal the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the lady who was put for medical examination was the different one and not the wife of the complainant respondent and thus the policy in question was taken by the complainant respondent after playing fraud with the appellants and on that ground the claim of the complainant respondent was rightly repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 18.1.01 and the District Forum had committed serious error and illegality in decreeing the claim of the complainant respondent. Hence the impugned order could not be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed.


4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order of the District Forum .


5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as for the respondent and gone through the entire materials available on record.


6. There is no dispute on the point that as per case of the complainant respondent that a policy was issued by the appellants in the name of Kela Devi for a sum of Rs. 84,000/- bearing policy no. 191696819 on 20.7.99 for 25 years.


7. There is also no dispute on the point that Kela Devi was the


6


wife of the complainant respondent who had died suddenly on 2.1.2000.


8. There is no dispute on the point that the claim of the above mentioned policy was repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 18.1.01 on the grounds mentioned therein.


9. There is also no dispute on the point that the deceased was an illiterate lady and she had put her thumb impressions on the medical examinar's report as well as on the proposal form.


10. There is also no dispute on the point that Mr. Krishna Charan, Fingerprint Expert had examined the thumb impressions of medical examinar's report with the thumb impressions of proposal form and the thumb impressions of medical examinar's report are marked as "Q" and of the proposal form are marked as "S" and "S-1".


11. There is no dispute on the point that Mr. Krishna Charan after detailed examination had come to the following conclusions -


"1. The impression "S-1" is a faint and smudged print. It does not contains even the trend of lines.


2. The impression "S" is also smudged one, but it contains some l;ines and on the basis of which its pattern can be fixed. It is LOOP type.


3. The impression "Q" on medical report is a print recorded from the tip of a finger. The trent of lines in print "S" and "Q" are found different."

7


12. There is also no dispute on the point that Mr. Gulab Chand Sharma had filed an affidavit before the District Forum inter alia stating that Kela Devi who was the wife of the complainant respondent was got medically examined and she was the same lady in whose favour the policy in question was issued.


13. There is no dispute on the point that there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that prior to taking the policy in question, the deceased was ever admitted in any hospital for taking the treatment of any kind of disease and her death was a sudden death.


14. Thus, in the facts and circumstances just narrated above, the question for consideration is whether the findings recorded by the District Forum could be sustained or not and whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant respondent by the appellants was justified or not.


15. In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the District Forum, Bharatpur are liable to be confirmed one because of the following reasons-


(i) That the agent of the LIC had given an affidavit to the effect that the wife of the complainant respondent was the same lady who was got medically examined and policy was issued in her favour and therefore, no question of any suspicion in respect of identity of the deceased arises.


(ii) That Mr. Krishna Charan in his report dated 9.1.01 had clearly observed that impression "S-1" is a faint and smudged print and it does not contains even the trend of lines and similarly the impression "S" is also smudged one

8


and even then some pattern was fixed by the expert and thereafter he had come to the conclusion that the impression "Q" of medical report is a different from the impression "S".



16. It may be stated here that the opinion given by the Finger print Expert could not stand where the photographic impressions of a statement/thumb impressions were not good enough to enable the expert to come to any definite conclusion and therefore, in such a case expert opinion should not be believed.


17. Further the fingerprint evidence should be believed only when there were clear dissimilar characteristics and there must have been quality and clarity of the print relied upon and in absence of them, the so called evidence could not be found to be reliable evidence and the District Forum had rightly rejected that evidence.


18. For the reasons stated above, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant respondent by the appellants was not justified and the repudiation has been made on the basis of wrong assumption and in arbitrary manner and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the District Forum in decreeing the claim of the complainant respondent. The findings of the District Forum decreeing the claim are based on correct appreciation of entire materials available on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity, illegality and perversity and



9


hence, no interference is called for with the same and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.


Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.



Member President