V.V. Satyanarayana Raju vs LIC OF INDIA

COMPLAINANT /Appellant has filed this Appeal against the order and judgment dated 29.12.04 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Complaint Case No. 97/2002 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him. FACTS: -

COMPLAINANT /Appellant''s father took an Endowment Assurance Policy with profits and accident benefit bearing No.801162196 from the Respondents for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- commencing from 20.02.01. The maturity date of the policy was 20.02.21. His father died due to heart attack within three months of the commencement of the policy on 06.05.2001. Appellant submitted the claim with the Respondents. Since the claim was not settled for a long time, Appellant wrote registered letters on 1.4.02 and 5.6.02 to the Respondent requesting them to settle the claim and pay the policy amount. Ultimately, vide letter dated 14.06.02, Respondent repudiated the claim of the Appellant on the grounds that he had disclaimed the claim and it was discovered after investigation that there was suppression of the material fact with regard to the age and health of the insured. Complainant''s father at the time of taking the policy had falsely declared his age as 45 years while he was 59 years old. According to the Appellant, he had never handed over the notarized disclaimer to the Respondent. He had handed over the claim papers to the LIC agent, Smt. S. Latha and -her husband Naryana who had taken his signatures on some blank papers as well as forms. There was no necessity for him to disclaim the policy * amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. There was no suppression of the facts with regard to age and health of his father. His signatures had been., misused by the agent of the Respondent to avoid the claim. Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission claiming the policy amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 6.5.01 till the date of actual payment and costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

RESPONDENT , on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement contesting the complaint, inter-alia, on the grounds that there was suppression of the material facts as1 the insured had falsely declared his age as 45 years in the proposal form whereas he was 60 years at the time of issuance of the policy, To prove his age he had submitted a school certificate bearing admission No.962/1960-66 dated 27.09.61 showing his year of birth as 1956. .That since the insured declared his age as 45 years, Respondent did not ask for the special medical reports which are mandatory requirements-for person of the age of 60 years or more. Policy was issued to the insured in good faith. That during the enquiry after the death of the insured, it was revealed by the school authorities that admission no.962/1961-66 dated 27.9.61 .did not pertain to the insured. As per the. school record, there was no admission on 27.9.61. It was further pleaded that the claim form was sent to the Appellant on 25.8.01 and the same was received back along with notarized disclaimer dated 5.9.01 from the Appellant stating that he relinquishes his claim in respect of the policy in question as the same had been obtained by suppressing material facts regarding the health of the deceased. That since the Appellant had relinquished his claim there was no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim by the Respondent.

STATE Commission, taking into consideration the facts, pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the complaint by observing as under: - " After going through the entire records, we are not convinced about the genuineness of the claim of the complainant Firstly, we are un able to understand why Smt. Latha and her husband Narayana have not been made as parties to the complaint It is the case of the complainant that they obtained his signature on blank paper and they might have misused the same. This fact was stated even in the complaint anticipating that the opposite parties going to rely on the disclaimer. It is also to be seen that the disclaimer has been notarized and the claim has been given up. Had the complainant made Smt. Latha and Narayana as parties to the complaint true facts would have come to the light as to whether the complainant has signed on the blank papers/forms and other details. The letter Exc. B-7 dt 12.11.02 issued by the Head Master, Municipal High School Sanjeev Nagar, Tedapalligudem clearly established that admission No.962 with date of admission 27.09.61 does not pertain to V. Surpa Raju and it further states that there are no admission at all on 27.9.61 in their school. The Complainant has placed reliance on Ex.12 identity car issued by the Election Commission wherein the age of his father is shown as 40 years. The age indicated in the identity car cannot be accepted as an authenticated one since the age declared at the time of enumeration is accepted without any verification. Even in this identity care the age is shown as 40 years as on 1.1.95, no reliance can be placed on Ex.A12 for the purpose of establishing the correct age of the insured. We are the considered opinion that the insured has suppressed his correct age at the time of the proposal and the complainant has come with a stand that he signed on the blank papers and handed over the same to the agent of the opposite party i.e. Smt. Latha and her husband, Narayna. The Complainant ought to have made them as parties to the complaint to establish the veracity of the theory of the signing on the blank papers. Ex.B-7 letter issued by the head master, Municipal High School, Sanjeev Nagar, Tadepelligudem dt. 12.11.02 clearly established that the complainant has placed fraud relying on admission NO.962/1961-66 dated 27.09.61. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his case for claiming the amount under the Endowment Assurance Policy. Appellant, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contends that the State Commission had erred in observing that the insured had suppressed his correct age at the time of proposal. State Commission has relied upon the certificate issued by the Head Master, Municipal High School, Sanjeev nagar, obtained by the Respondent. That the insured had studied in MPUP School, Yendagandi, Undimandal, West Godawari District. That as per birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat and the voter identity card, the age of the insured was 45 years. His signatures had been obtained by the agent on some blank papers and he was assured that his claim would be processed and settled as early as possible. That his signatures were misused by the agent of the Respondent. He had never given notarized disclaimer dated 5.9.01 to the Respondent. As against this, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent supports the order of the State Commission.

WE do not find substance in the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. The claim of the Appellant was repudiated by the Respondent Insurance Company on the ground of suppression of material fact with regard to the age of the insured and the notarized disclaimer given by the Appellant relinquishing his claim. To prove his age, insured had submitted the school certificate bearing admission-No.962/1960-66 dated 27.09.61 showing his. year of birth as 1956 years with school stamp containing address as Head Master, Municipal Elementary School, Sanjeeva Nagar, Tedapalligudem. The letter dated 12.11.02 (Ex.B-7) issued by the Head Master, Municipal High School, Sanjeevnagar, Tedappalligudem clearly establishes that admission No.962 with date of admission 27.09.61 does not belong to the insured, V. Supra Raju. That no admission was made in the School on 27.09.61, State Commission has rightly observed that the age indicated in the identity card cannot be accepted as an authenticated as the age declared at the time of enumeration is accepted without any verification. The plea taken by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that Appellant''s signatures were obtained by the agent of the Respondents on some blank forms to settle the claim at the earliest and she had misused his signatures to defeat the claim, cannot be accepted. A perusal of the disclaimer shows that the Appellant had signed on a proforma printed on the paper and he had signed in English in running hand. The plea taken by the Appellant that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers cannot be accepted as he had signed on a Standard profroma already printed. The disclaimer was duly got notarized from the Notary. The plea taken by the Appellant that'' his signatures obtained- on blank papers were misused to prepare the disclaimer by the agent of the Respondent does not hold water. Appellant neither produced the agent as witness nor impleaded her'' as a party respondent to substantiate the plea taken by him. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.