STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW.

(RESERVED)

APPEAL NO.1008 OF 2016

(Against the judgment/order dated 29.01.2016 in Complaint Case No.134/2015 of the District Consumer Forum-I, Moradabad.)

PNB MetLife India (formally known as “MetLife Insurance Co. Ltd.”)

Registered Office:- Brigade Seshamahal, 5 Vani Vilas Road,

Basavanagudi, Banglore-560004

Karnataka

Through Authorized Signatory.

...............Appellant

Vs

Junaid,

S/o Sri Jumma,

R/o Gram 325, Shahpur Anshik,

Dak- Bhojpur, District- Moradabad.

...............Respondent

     BEFORE:

     HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

    HON’BLE MR. JITENDRA NATH SINHA, MEMBER

    HON’BLE SMT. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER

    For the Appellant                : Sri Prashant Kumar, Advocate.

    For the Respondent             : Sri S.P. Pandey, Advocate.

    Dated:

JUDGMENT

MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN

PNB Metlife India (formally known as MetLife Insurance Co. Ltd.) who is OP of complaint No.134/15 Junaid Vs PNB Metlife India, has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 herein after referred as Act against judgment and award dated 29.01.2016 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Moradabad in said complaint.

Vide impugned judgment and award dated 29.01.2016 the District Consumer Forum has allowed the above complaint filed by the Complainant Junaid now respondent and has directed OP now

-2-

appellant to pay Rs.9,44,380.00 to said Complainant within 1 month with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint to the date of actual payment. The District Consumer Forum has further ordered that if the OP now appellant fails to make payment in the above time prescribed the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. The District Consumer Forum has further awarded Rs.20,000.00 as compensation and Rs.500.00 as cost of the complaint.

We have heard learned Counsel for appellant Sri Prashant Kumar and learned Counsel for respondent Sri S.P. Pandey. We have gone through impugned judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum as well as records of the case.

It is contended by learned Counsel for appellant that the insurance policy has been obtained in the name of a dead person by playing fraud. The date of death of alleged insured Jumma was also got registered by making false statement before the Registrar. The date of deceased Jumma is 30.11.2014 he was dead on 06.12.2014 when the policy was obtained. This fact came to notice of OP when the investigator submitted his report after having made investigation in respect of claim of respondent/Complainant.

It is further contended by learned Counsel for appellant that the death certificate of deceased Jumma has been corrected by Registrar birth and death after enquiry and 30.11.2014 the correct date of death has been recorded. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Consumer Forum has wrongly placed reliance on death certificate which has already been modified and has wrongly ignored modified death certificate. The impugned judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum is against law as well as against evidence.

It is contended by learned Counsel for respondent/Complainant that Jumma father of Complainant was alive on the date of policy. He died on 30.12.2014 subsequently. His death was registered accordingly by Registrar birth and death registration. It is contended by learned Counsel for respondent/Complainant that the original death certificate of deceased Jumma issued to respondent/Complainant has

-3-

not been cancelled by Registrar birth and death registration. Respondent/Complainant has furnished photocopy of death certificate of Jumma to appellant/OP on which appellant/OP has prepared forged entry of modification of date of death.

It is further contended by learned Counsel for respondent/Complainant that Complainant has adduced sufficient evidence to prove that his father Jumma was alive on the date of policy and has died on 30.12.2014. The impugned judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law as well as evidence.

We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.

The disputed insurance policy No.21444891 has been obtained on 06.12.2014 but it is alleged by appellant insurance Co. that the insured Jumma was dead on that date and the insurance policy was obtained by fraud while it is alleged by Complainant that insured Jumma was alive and he died on 30.12.2014 subsequently.

The original death certificate of deceased Jumma was issued by Registrar birth and death registration on 12.01.2015 showing 30.12.2014 the date of death of insured Jumma but subsequently death certificate of insured Jumma is alleged to have been modified by Registrar birth and death registration vide order dated 09.03.2014 and it has been recorded by him in modification order that the date of insured Jumma is 30.11.2014.

Perusal of impugned judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum shows that before District Consumer Forum the respondent/Complainant has filed his affidavit in support of his version. He has further filed death certificate and papers relating to treatment of deceased Jumma before District Consumer Forum. He has further filed certificate issued by Village Pradhan regarding death of deceased Jumma and affidavits of Husain, Ajay, Mohd. Yusuf, Babu Dealer, Ali Husain, Mohd. Umar, Rashid, Shahadat and Ghulam Nabi in support of his version.

Perusal of impugned judgment and award shows that

-4-

appellant/OP has filed affidavit of his Legal Manager Sri Mohan Shetty alongwith insurance policy and proposal for insurance policy. Appellant/OP has further filed copy of statement of neighbours of deceased and alleged photocopy of modified death certificate of deceased Jumma.

In his argument learned Counsel for respondent/Complainant has submitted that photocopy of alleged modified death certificate of Jumma filed by appellant/OP before District Consumer Forum has been prepared by appellant/OP himself fraudulently on the photocopy of death certificate furnished to him by the respondent/Complainant. Learned Counsel for appellant/respondent has not accepted the contention of learned Counsel for respondent. He has submitted that the death certificate of deceased Jumma has been modified by Registrar birth and death registration in accordance with provisions of Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969.

We have considered the submissions of both parties.

Section 15 of the registration of birth and death Act is relevant to quote below:-

“Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths- If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.”

A reading of above Section 15 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 shows that the Registrar is competent to correct the entries of birth or death certificate.

In impugned judgment and award learned District Consumer Forum has not recorded any finding to the effect that the photocopy of alleged modified death certificate of Jumma is based on forged

-5-

document. In impugned judgment and award learned District Consumer Forum has observed that OP (now appellant) has filed photocopy of death certificate of deceased Jumma but in it there is no mention that the Village Panchayat Officer has cancelled the original death certificate after having summoned it from the Complainant. In the impugned judgment and award District Consumer Forum has further observed that there is no affidavit of Village Panchayat Officer to the effect that he has cancelled the death certificate of deceased Jumma as alleged by OP now respondent.

A reading of above Section 15 of the registration of birth and death Act shows that in case of correction of birth and death only suitable entry shall be made on the margin without any alteration of the original entry and the perusal of alleged copy of modified death certificate shows that Village Panchayat Officer has endorsed accordingly. Village Panchayat Officer is alleged to be the Registrar under the registration of birth and death Act for the village.

On correction of birth and death registration certificate relevant entries shall be made in accordance with Section 15 of registration of birth and death Act, 1969 on original register as well as records kept in the office of Registrar. Registrar is not required to obtain the copy issued to Complainant and to cancel it in pursuance of amended order. In this context Rule 11 of UP Birth and Death Registration Rules, 2002 is relevant. The relevant para of this Rule is quoted below:-

"जन्‍म और मृत्‍यु के रजिस्‍टर में प्रविष्टि को ठीक या रद्द करना- यदि रजिस्‍टार को यह रिपोर्ट दी जाती है कि रजिस्‍टर में कोई लिपिकीय या औपचारिक त्रुटि हो गई है या यदि ऐसी किसी त्रुटि का उसे अन्‍यथा पता लगता है और यदि रजिस्‍टर उसके कब्‍जे में है तो रजिस्‍टार इस विषय में जॉंच करेगा और यदि उसका समाधान हो जाता है कि ऐसी कोई त्रुटि हो गयी है तो वह धारा 15 में यथा उपबिन्‍धत रूप में त्रुटि को (प्र‍विष्टि को ठीक या रदद् करके) ठीक करेगा, और ऐसी प्रविष्टि का एक उद्धरण जिसमें यह दर्शित किया जायेगा कि त्रुटि क्‍या थी और उसे कैसे ठीक किया गया है, जिला रजिस्‍टार को भेजेगा।"

-6-

There is nothing on record to show as to whether the copy of alleged amended death certificate of deceased Jumma was sent to District Registrar or not. As discussed above, the learned Counsel for the respondent/Complainant disputes genuineness of alleged amended death certificate of Jumma, therefore it is necessary to enquire about its genuineness.

It is relevant to mention that in view of Sub Section 2 of Section 17 of the registration of birth and death Act, 1969 all extracts of birth and death register certified by Registrar or any other officer authorised by the State Government shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the birth or death to which the entry relates. Thus, it is apparent that the copy of death certificate issued by Registrar is admissible in evidence and affidavit of Registrar in support of death certificate is not needed for making it admissible in evidence. At this juncture it is also relevant to mention that in proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the provisions of evidence Act are not strictly applicable. The photocopy of annexures of affidavit may be read in evidence.

In view of discussions made above, we are of the view that reasons recorded by District Consumer Forum for ignoring the amended death certificate of deceased Jumma cannot be accepted in the eyes of law and as mentioned above District Consumer Forum has not recorded a finding to the effect that the alleged amended death certificate of deceased Jumma is forged.

In view of above, considering all the aspects of the case, we are of the view that thorough enquiry is needed by District Consumer Forum about genuineness of alleged amended death certificate of deceased Jumma and without such enquiry the alleged amended death certificate of Jumma cannot be ignored.

Respondent/Complainant has filed before District Consumer Forum prescription of Shubham Nursing Home dated 23.12.2014 in which name of patient is written “Mr. Jumma Ahmad”. Registration of outdoor patient of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay District Hospital,

-7-

Moradabad dated 27.12.2014 has also been filed by Complainant/respondent before District Consumer Forum. In this paper also Jumma has been written as the name of the patient. Respondent/Complainant has filed pathology report dated 27.12.2014 also showing Jumma name of patient. Respondent/Complainant has filed registration card of Community Hospital, Sambhal in which name of Jumma S/o Sharif R/o Shahpur, Mustkam, District-Moradabad, age 47 years has been written and in it EMO, CHC, Sambhal has endorsed “brought dead”. Perusal of impugned judgment and award shows that no affidavits have been filed in support of above papers relating to treatment of deceased Jumma to prove them. In this context, it is relevant to refer para 4 of the complaint in which it has been stated on behalf of Complainant that Jumma the father of Complainant shown himself to doctor of Sambhal but he could not get well and his health went on deterioration and ultimately on 30.01.2014 he died.

But the registration paper of Community Health Centre, Sambhal referred above shows that Jumma, father of Complainant was brought dead to Samudayik Swasthya Kendra, Sambhal, who brought him it has not been mentioned in the registration card. Neither the affidavit of the person who brought Jumma at the hospital, Sambhal nor affidavit of doctor who declared him dead has been filed by Complainant/respondent. In view of above contention of para 4 of complaint regarding treatment of Jumma father of Complainant at hospital, Sambhal is contradicted by registration certificate of hospital Sambhal.

The respondent/Complainant has filed a death certificate of deceased Jumma given by Village Pradhan. This certificate is a personal certificate and virtually it is a domicile certificate. Fact of death has been added in it in different handwriting. No affidavit of Pradhan has been filed to prove it.

In view of discussion made above, we are of the view that important and relevant issues have escaped attention of District Consumer Forum and in view of discussion made above, the judgment

-8-

and award passed by District Consumer Forum cannot be said to be in accordance with law and evidence. In view of discussion made above, we are of the view, that the appeal should be allowed and the matter should be remanded to the District Consumer Forum for passing afresh judgment and order after affording proper opportunity of hearing and evidence to both parties in accordance with law.

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

Impugned judgment and award dated 29.01.2016 is set aside.

 The case is remanded back to District Consumer Forum-I, Moradabad for passing afresh judgment and order in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing and evidence to both the parties within 3 months from the date fixed for appearance of the parties.

Parties shall appear before District Consumer Forum-I, Moradabad on 11/07/2016.

Amount deposited by appellant under Section 15 of the Act shall be refunded to appellant in accordance with rules.

Let copy of this judgment be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.

       (JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN)

        PRESIDENT

    (JITENDRA NATH SINHA)

MEMBER

  (SMT. BAL KUMARI)

MEMBER

Sarika