SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President,
Mr. Jasbir Singh & Mrs. D.K. Bhamrah, Members
SURJAN SINGH SAINI—Appellant
versus
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA—Respondent
Appeal No. 1151 of 1997—Decided on 20.4.1999

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. K.C. Malhotra and Mr. Paruthi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.J. Singh, Advocate.

The burden of proof in case of fraudulent suppression of material facts in a contract of insurance rests heavily on the insurer.

Headnote:

INSURANCE - LIFE INSURANCE - SUICIDE - BURDEN OF PROOF - INSURANCE COMPANY - SECTION 45 OF THE INSURANCE ACT, 1938 - SUMMARY: The insurance company failed to provide direct evidence to prove that the insured committed suicide. The court held that the burden of proof in case of fraudulent suppression of material facts in a contract of insurance rests heavily on the insurer.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant's son, Gurmukh Singh, died on 18.10.1995. The insurance premium was duly paid to the L.I.C. The complainant submitted the claim before the respondent/opposite party for payment of the sum assured and accrued bonus under the said policy, but the same was illegally declined on the allegation that the life assured had committed suicide within one year of the policy.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the insurance company failed to provide direct evidence to prove that the insured committed suicide. The court also found that the insurance company did not produce any witness who was living in the vicinity of that area confirming the cause of death of the deceased/insured as alleged by the insurance company.

Issues: Whether the insurance company was liable to pay the sum assured and accrued bonus under the policy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof in case of fraudulent suppression of material facts in a contract of insurance rests heavily on the insurer. The court also held that the insurance company failed to produce any direct evidence to prove that the insured committed suicide.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay the sum assured and accrued bonus under the policy with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 4 months from the date of submission of the claim till payment.

ORDER

Mr. Jasbir Singh, Member—Smt. Gurdev Kaur wife of the complainant had taken an insurance policy, bearing No. 130698132 for Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees One Lac only) sum assured on the life of her minor son Gurmukh Singh. The policy was Money Back (With Profits) Plan under Table No. 95 for a period of 20 years. The said policy was taken from Branch Office, Industrial Branch, Jalandhar City under the supervision and control of opposite party. The insured duly paid the premium during the subsistence of policy. The complainant who is the father of the deceased preferred a claim, but the opposite parry-L.I.C. repudiated its liability on the ground that the insured committed suicide and the claimant was fraudulently trying to suppress the facts and as per conditions of the policy, no amount was payable.

2. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents which resulted in passing the impugned order by the District Forum, Jalandhar. The complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant is before us in appeal against the aforesaid order of the District Forum.

3. We have gone through the records and heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties both on facts and on the legal propositions. Some of the facts are not disputed. The insured died on 18.10.1995. The insurance premium was duly paid to the L.I.C.

4. In appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated that the complainant’s son Gurmukh Singh was a student on 10+2 Class in Doaba Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Jalandhar and was keeping good health and habits. He was not suffering from any disease. Unfortunately, he died by natural death on 18.10.1995. The appellant submitted the claim before the respondent/opposite party for payment of the sum assured and accrued bonus under the said policy, but the same was illegally declined on the allegation that the life assured had committed suicide within one year of the policy.

5. Learned Counsel for L.I.C. asserted that on investigation, it transpired that it was not a case of natural death but was a case of suicide and the complainant/ appellant was fraudulently trying to suppress it and as per the conditions of the policy, no amount was payable thereunder. The Counsel for the L.I.C. also asserted that there is no provision under the contract with L.I.C. to pay interest to the claimant. No interest can be allowed to the appellant/claimant.

6. In evidence, in support of the claim the complainant-Surjan Singh has filed an affidavit. The opposite party, in evidence, filed an affidavit of Mr. ML. Gupta, Manager, Claim Department, L.I.C, Jalandhar wherein he stated that after conducting thorough claim investigation it has transpired that the life assured had committed suicide in Gurdwara where the deceased was staying as a tenant and the certificate was procured to that effect from the Gurdwara Sahib Authorities on letter head pad (Ex. 0-6) dated 24.9.1996. This certificate bears signatures of Gian Singh, Gurmit Singh and Sukhdev Singh etc. However, these persons gave affidavits which were produced by the complainant himself showing that they had merely signed the certificate. When approached on 24.9.1996 by the officials of the L.I.C. that since the claim was to be passed so they were asked to give statement and certificate, that Gurmukh Singh deceased had committed suicide so that his claim could be settled. These three witnesses now nullify the stand taken by the opposite party-L.I.C. The contention of the L.I.C. that the insured committed suicide cannot be accepted as the affidavit given by Sh. M.L. Gupta, Manager, Claims Department of L.I.C. is based on hearsay. No affidavit of any person has been filed who was living in the vicinity of that area confirming the cause of death of the deceased/insured as alleged -by the opposite party. It may also be observed that no FIR was lodged. The contention is, therefore, repelled.

7. Hon’ble National Commission in New India Insurance Company &




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top