DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The deceased/insured, Mr. Abbas Haider, took insurance policy for Rs.50,000/-. The proposal form was filled by the agent of the LIC/OP 1 on 1.2.1995. The policy was issued after medical examination. The officer of OP 1 also examined the proposal form and accepted declared age of the insured without any age proof. During subsistence of policy, the insured expired on 6.7.1998. As the petitioner/complainant, Azaz Haider, being a nominee of the deceased, filed an insurance claim with the OP but it was rejected by stating reason that the insured had declared false age while filling the proposal form. 2. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bijnor. The District Forum after considering the evidence of the parties, the Kutum Register and certificates of birth and death issued by competent authorities, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay the insured amount to the complainant. 3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP approached the State Commission by way of first appeal. The State Commission, after hearing both the parties, rejected the date of birth mentioned in Kutumb register and relied upon the certificate of Basic Primary School, Rashidgarhi. Thus, State Commission concluded that the age has been concealed by the policy holder, therefore, the appeal was allowed by dismissing the complaint. The State Commission also rejected the plea of complainant under Section 45 of the Insurance Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the complainant filed this revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the application for condonation of delay. Short delay of 7 days is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the declared age on proposal form is authenticated by documentary evidence i.e. copy of Kutumb Register under the provision of the Panchayati Raj Act. The fact was made known to the agent of the OP, who filled the proposal form. The doctor of OP had also examined the insured person. Therefore, there was no objection either from the agent or from the doctor. The OP has not raised any question while accepting the proposal form and the premium was realized without any objection. The insurance company failed in his duty, it would have inquired about actual age of the insured during life time and to have amended the policy under different table. He submitted that the deceased never went to the School and he was illiterate. 7. Counsel for the OP submitted that the age of deceased/insured was not less than 40 years at the time of getting the insurance policy but he declared it as 27 years i.e. 13 years less than the actual age. The counsel relied upon the certificate issued by Head Master, Basic Primary School, Rashidgiri that the date of birth was 24.4.1956. The counsel also contended that the insured had studied in Basic Primary School, Rashidgiri, Bijnor and he has signed the proposal form also. Hence, he was not illiterate. 8. We have perused the evidence on record; the Kutumb Register, School Certificate etc. The insured deceased was an illiterate person. The form was filled by the agent of the LIC/OP 1, he was not intelligent enough to understand the various LIC plans/Fables under which he was covered. He has to believe entirely upon the words of agent. It is a fact that the LIC officers totally accepted the policy after agent’s report. In common parlance, it is very difficult for a layman to understand the language and a miniature text in the proposal form. It should be borne in mind that no person will intentionally declare his age wrongly or no one wants to conceal his age and state of health by false declaration. Thus, we need to take holistic approach in this case. 9. It is pertinent to note that the policy was issued after due verification by the officer of OP 1 and examination of panel of LIC doctors. In the instant case, the OP relied upon the primary school certificate, which shows the date of birth as 24.04.1956 whereas the Kutumb register showed date of birth as 1.2.1969. On perusal of birth certificate issued by Government of U.P., Department of Health, it revealed the date of birth as 1.2.1969. The registration was done on 16.2.1994. The certificate was issued by the Registrar (Birth and Death) at Gram Panchayat, Pedi on 23.1.2002. It clearly establishes the date of birth was 1.2.1969. On perusal of certificate issued by School, it is a hand written certificate in which name of School, name of head master and seal is not seen. The certificate is not convincing one. There is 13 years age difference between those two certificates. It is surprising to note that how the agent or OP1’s officials failed to note such vast age difference. It shows negligence, passivity and inaction of the agent and the OPs. 10. It clearly indicates unfairness on the part of OP to save a meagre sum of Rs.50,000/-. We are of considered view that dragging the innocent illiterate consumer from the District Forum to National Commission itself shows that the OPs are bent upon harassing such like consumers, who have kept the utmost good faith of such insurance companies. The family members of the deceased are struggling to avail genuine claim of Rs.50,000/- only since 1998 i.e. for almost two decades. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Smt. Khazani & ANR. [Civil Appeal No. 6261 of 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8875/2010], categorically observed that : "Unless serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects a large number of persons or the stakes are very high, court's jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed at the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts, even at the level of the Supreme Court." 11. Therefore, we set aside the order of State Commission and restore the order of District Forum with the modification that the OP shall pay the insured amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim. Considering the case which is hanging fire for 2 decades, we direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. The entire order shall be complied with within 45 days, otherwise, entire sum will carry further interest @ 12% per annum from the date of pronouncement of this order. |
