Rang Lal Jat vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited 7 Anr

V.K. Jain, J

Late Shri Champa Lal Jat, brother of the complainant / appellant obtained three insurance policies from the respondent HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, between November, 2013 to July, 2014. Out of the aforesaid two policies, one policy lapsed. The deceased insured having died on 22.4.2016, the claims in respect of the remaining two policies one bearing number 16980568 and the other bearing number 16446588 were submitted by the complainant, he being the nominee under the said polices. The claims having not been paid, he approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent, which inter-alia stated in its written version that the policies had been obtained concealing facts such as the occupation, income and previous polices taken from the respondent as well as from other insurance company, in quick succession within a short time span. It was further stated in the written version filed by the insurer that had the insured disclosed the previous policies taken by him, the policies in question would not have been given to him, considering the income disclosed by him.

It was also alleged in the written version filed by the respondent that the complainant was a big investor who had been taking polices identifying potential death cases and his group comprises several other individuals, who used to identify potentially sick people.

The State Commission vide impugned order dated 21.8.2018 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved the complainant / appellant is before this Commission.

Since the complainant is not a Class I legal heir of the deceased insured, he being his brother, I asked the learned counsel for the complainant / appellant as to whether the deceased by survived by any Class I legal heir such as his widow and children. The learned counsel stated that the deceased was survived by his wife though he was not aware whether he was survived by any child or not. Though, the complainant was a nominee under the insurance policy taken on the life of late Shri Champa Lal Jat, the benefit under the said insurance policies eventually belongs to the Class I legal heir of the deceased. Though, a nominee can collect the benefit payable under an insurance policy, he has to hold the said benefit in Trust for the legal heirs of the deceased till the time the said benefits are paid by him to the legal heirs. Since the complainant is not a Class I legal heir of late Shri Champa Lal Jat, he, in my view, had no locus-standi to file the consumer complaint, which could have been filed only by the Class I legal heirs of the deceased.

On merits, it is not in dispute that while obtaining the insurance policy from the respondent, the deceased insured had not disclosed an existing policy which he had already taken from Bharti AXA on 20.11.2013. The case of the respondent is that had the other policies been disclosed in the proposal, the proposals would not have been accepted, considering the income of the deceased. Therefore, the concealment with respect to the existing insurance policies related to a material fact which influenced the decision of the insurer on the question as to whether to accept the proposal or not.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the complainant / appellant that the deceased insured was a non-matriculate and the proposals were filled up by the insurance agent, who did not read over and explain the contents of the said proposals to the insured before obtaining his signature on them. I however, find no such averment in the consumer complaint. Nowhere has the complainant even alleged, in the consumer complaint filed by him, that the proposal forms were filled by the agent and were not read over to the deceased insured before the same were signed by him. Even the names of the insurance agents have not been disclosed in the consumer complaint. The learned counsel for the complainant / appellant submits that the names of the agents were known to the respondent the same have not been disclosed in the proposal forms. Even if this is so, unless it is alleged in the consumer complaint that the proposal forms were filled up by the agent, who did not read over the contents of the said proposal forms to the proposer, the opposite party has no opportunity to rebut such an averment. Had the complainant alleged in the consumer complaint that the proposals were filled up by the agents, who did not read over the contents of the said proposals to the proposer, it would have been possible for the insurer to summon those agents and prove that either the proposal forms were filled up by the insured himself or that the contents of the said proposals were duly read over to him and were accepted by him to be true and correct. In the absence of such an averment in the complaint, it would be difficult to accept the contention that the proposals were filled up by the agents and were not read over and explained to the insured.

Though, the learned counsel for the complainant / appellant refers to the decisions of this Commission in RP/3139/2015 Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Paramjit Kaur decided on 10.5.2016, RP/587/2015 Smt. Sulochana Indurkar Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. decided on 11.9.2015 and RP/1117/2014 The C.E.O. & Director, Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rayani Ramanjaneyulu decided on 01.8.2014, the said decisions, in my view, would be of no help to him, considering that the complaint contains no allegation that the proposals were filled up by the agent who did not read over the contents of the said document to the deceased insured. The State Commission, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Agarwal Steel (2010) 1 SCC 83 decided on 20.10.2009, wherein the Hon'ble Court inter-alia held as under:

"5. In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. In particular, businessmen, being careful people (since their money is involved) would have ordinarily read and understood a document before signing it. Hence the presumption would be even stronger in their case. There is no allegation of force or fraud in this case. Hence it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document Ex.D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake. We cannot agree with the view of the High Court on this question."

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.