JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA vs CHAIRMAN, BHARTIYA JEEVAN BIMA NIGAM

THIS is a complaint for awarding damages of Rs. 25,000/- for not paying amount of insurance within the time.

THE facts of the case are that Jagdish Prasad Sharma was the nominee in the policy which was taken out by Pandit Govind Das Sharma. He died on 30.7.1988. THE policy was taken from Life Insurance Corporation of India bearing No. 230104074, dated 8.2.1988 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. According to the terms of policy the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith bonus was to be paid to the nominee Jagdish Prasad Sharma. THE copy of policy is being filed alongwith complaint. Opposite parties have not complied with the terms of the policy and have not paid the amount in terms of the policy. A legal notice dated 17.4.1990 was also issued to the opposite parties but nothing has been done so far. During the pendency of complaint Jagdish Prasad Sharma died and his legal heirs have been impleaded. In the written statement it has been averred that there is no deficiency in service if the amount is not paid on account of legal grounds. It is further alleged that the policy in dispute was obtained by fraud, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any amount. Only one premium was paid on 8.2.1998. As wrong facts were mentioned, therefore, the policy was repudiated. In the policy the real age of insured person was not mentioned. After inquiry this fact came to the knowledge of the opposite parties and the policy was repudiated on 24.7.1998. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter. It is further alleged that the date of birth mentioned as 25th of May, 1946 is not supported by the voter list and the record of service. In the service record the date of birth is written as 23.4.1949. If the insured had told his real age of 60 years then the policy would not have been issued to him, wrong age was also disclosed in the policy.

Parties have filed evidence before the Commission.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. According to the complainant the amount of the insured has not been paid after death of the insured person. According to the case of the opposite party the date of birth which has been disclosed by the deceased is 25.5.1946 is not supported by any document. As a matter of fact, the proposal was submitted on 29.1.1988 and the policy commenced from 8.2.1988. The insured person died on 30.9.1988. The death was on natural causes. The only ground for repudiation is that the date of birth was wrongly given as 25.5.1946 while actually at the time of the taking of the policy the insured person was about 60 years of age. In the copy of the policy which is on record, the date of birth is not admitted and the insured person in his life time was allowed to file documents in proof of his age. Annexure No. 2 to the written statement is a letter issued by the insured person in which he has mentioned that he would supply the copy of High School Examination Certificate or any other proof of age within a period of six months. In this connection also the date of birth was shown as 25.5.1946. But the facts on record disclose that this Certificate was not supplied within time or during the life time of the deceased. After the death of the deceased a copy of High School Certificate was filed which shows that the deceased had passed High School Examination in 1974 with Roll No. 183635 and the date of birth is mentioned as 25.5.1944. In order to controvert this certificate the Insurance Company has filed a letter dated 4.1.1992 to show that the age of the deceased can be verified from the Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. The letter dated 22.7.1992 has been issued by the Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. A perusal of this letter goes to show that the High School Examination Certificate which has been filed by the complainant in the present case was not issued to Govind Das Sharma, deceased but was issued to one Km. Kamaljeet Kaur. No document has been filed by the complainant to controvert this letter. This letter clearly goes to show that the High School Examination Certificate, copy of which has been filed before this Commission, is a forged one and was not issued to deceased who got him insured. The complainant has also filed the copies of Birth Register and the copy of Transfer Certificate of Basic Shiksha Parishad to show that the date of birth of the appellant was 22.5.1946. To the same effect is the certificate issued for the examination of 1959 of Junior High School. All these documents cannot also be believed in view of the fact that a forged certificate has been filed in which the same date of birth has been given. When the deceased had taken upon himself the duty to furnish the High School Certificate to the Life Insurance Corporation within the same allowed and but failed to furnish the same it can safely be presumed that he had no High School Certificate issued in his favour showing the date of birth as alleged by him. Reliance has been placed by the complainant on the fact that in the medical done by the doctor at the time of the issuing of the policy the age is written as 42 years. According to the Life Insurance Corporation High School Certificate cannot be treated as conclusive to prove the age of deceased, as it has come in evidence that it is a forged certificate and no reliance can be placed on it. There isno conclusive evidence to prove that the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time when the policy was taken.

THUS we find that the claim was repudiated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India in good faith only, therefore, there is no deficiency in service. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed for the reasons mentioned above. Let a copy of this order be made available to the parties within ten days. Complaint dismissed. _____________