Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 32818
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J. G. Mecwan, Presiding Member
MITA SUBHASBHAI DIXIT – Appellant
Versus
BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD – Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.24 OF 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pratik Joshi, S. G. Shah
For the Respondents: Milan Dudhia
Electronic records produced as secondary evidence in court proceedings are inadmissible without a mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. An insurer cannot repudiate a claim based on material suppression if they fail to prove those facts through admissible evidence.
Headnote:(A) Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 45 - Consumer protection - Insurance claim repudiation - Suppression of material facts - Proposal for insurance - Life assured died shortly after policy issuance - Allegation of multiple prior insurance policies not disclosed - Burden of proof lies on insurance company to prove material suppression. (Paras 5, 7, 9).
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65B - Admissibility of electronic evidence - Requirement of certificate under Section 65B(4) - Electronic records such as email correspondence produced as secondary evidence are inadmissible without the mandatory accompanying certificate or affidavit as required by law - Oral evidence cannot substitute this mandatory statutory requirement. (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
The claimant sought the insurance sum assured following the death of the life assured. The insurer repudiated the claim on the grounds of deliberate suppression of multiple existing policies held by the deceased with various other companies, invoking Section 45 of the Insurance Act. The matter was previously remanded to the state commission to allow parties to lead evidence regarding the existence of these undisclosed policies.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the insurer failed to produce admissible evidence to substantiate the claim that the deceased held undisclosed policies. The email correspondence submitted by the insurer was deemed inadmissible per Section 65B of the Evidence Act due to the lack of the mandatory certification/affidavit. Furthermore, the court held that the absence of cross-examination of the witness rendered their affidavit invalid evidence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the insurer successfully proved the material suppression of existing insurance policies and whether the electronic records (emails) produced by the insurer met the statutory requirements for admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a mandatory condition precedent for the admissibility of electronic records. Without this certification, information stored in computers and printed on paper cannot be admitted as evidence. Consequently, where the insurer fails to discharge the burden of proving material suppression through admissible evidence, the claim must be honored.
Result: Complaint partially allowed; insurer ordered to pay the sum assured with interest and costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and the facts of the insurance claim dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding non-disclosure and material suppression. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. evidentiary status of affidavits and absence of cross-examination. (Para 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. admissibility of electronic evidence under section 65b of evidence act. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final ruling and order allowing the consumer's insurance claim. (Para 12) |
ORDER BY DR. J. G. MECWAN, PRESIDING MEMBER
JUDGMENT
1. Factual Matrix:
Late Shri Subhash Bhupendrabhai Dixit took an Insurance Policy from the opponent for a sum assured of Rs. 20 lacks after paying premium amount Rs.96,165/-. After death of Subhash Bhupendrabhai Dixit (deceased of life assured – D.L.A.) on 26.12.2009, his wife sent claim papers to opponent Insurance Company to get claim amount but the claim was repudiated vide latter dt. 8.02.2010 on the ground that DLA had taken several policies of his life from other Insurance Companies.
2. Being dissatisfied with the reason given by opponent Insurance Company complainant has filed Consumer Complaint before this State Commission to get claim amount Rs.20 lacks from date 08.02.2010, Rs.2 lacks for mental torture and Rs. 50,000 for the cost of complaint.
3. After hearing both the parties, coordinating bench of this State Commission has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of this Learned State commission, complainant has filed first appeal on 07.11.13 before Hon’ble NCDRC wherein Hon’ble NCDRC set aside the order of the state commission and matter was remitted to decide the complaint as a fresh and ordered to give opportunities to the parties to lead evidence.
Furthermore it has been directed by Hon'ble NCDRC to examine Smt. Gitaben Chapatwala as a court witness and after giving opportunity to both the parties for cross examine of Smt. Gitaben Chapatwala.
In perusing of the order passed by Hon’ble NCDRC the complainant has submitted an application for issuing summons to examine Smt. Gitaben Chapatwala (agent of Birla Sun life Insurance Company ) as a witness and on dated 24.07.2019 State Commission has passed order as under:
It is pertinent to note that letter dated 20.05.2010 is produced on 04.12.2012 but there is no endorsement of other side on the list, no order is passed on the said application nor the same is mentioned in the rojkam dated 04.12.2012. There is also no signature on this list of advocate. Considering this fact in our opinion if complainant is relying upon letter dated 20.05.2010, then she should file the affidavit of Ms. Gitaben Bharatbhai Chapatwala before us and after filing the affidavit if we think fit, then question will arise to call her for examination. If affidavit will not be placed on record by the complainant on or before 09.08.2019, then necessary order will be passed against the complainant. Copy of this order be provided to the respective parties. S. o. to 09.08.2019.
Thereafter on dated 20.06.19 Smt. Gitaben Chapatwala has filed affidavit which is on record at Page no. 186 and 187 wherein she has stated as under:
સદર વિમા પોલીસી ના સમય દરમ્યાન સુભાષભાઇનુ અકસ્માત માાં અિસાન થિાથી તેમના પરીિાર દ્રારા વિમા કાંપની માાં કલેઇમ કરલે અનેકલઇે મ પ્રોસેસ િખતેમારી વિમા કાંપની દ્રારા મનેઓરલી જણાિેલ કેતમો એ માત્ર એક પોલીસી ની વિગત પ્રપોઝલ માાં લીધેલ છે બાકીની કેમ લીધી નથી તે અનુસાંધાને મેં તારીખ 06/03/2010 તથા 20/05/2010 ના રોજ વિમા કાંપની ને બીજી વિમા પોલીસી મર્ુુમ સુભાષ ભાઇ દ્રારા જણાિેલ પરાંતુ કયા કારણ થી પ્રપોઝલમાાં એક જ વિમા પોલીસી ની વિગત લખેલ છે અને બાકીની કેમ લખેલ નથી તે બાબતનો લેખીત ખુલાસો મેવિમા કાંપનીનેકરલે આ ખુલાસો વિમા કાંપની દ્રારા મનેઓરલી જણાિેલ તેમજુ બ મેંવિમા કપની ને કરલે છે.સદર બાંન્ને તારીખ 06/03/2010 તથા 20/05/2010 ના પત્રે મારા દ્રારા જ કલેઇમ પ્રોસીઝર િખતે વિમા કાંપની દ્રારા મારો ખુલાસો ઓરલી માાંગેલ તે માટે મે આપેલ છે, જેબાંનેપત્રો મા મારી સર્ી છેજને ેર્ુાં ઓળખી બતાિુ છુ અને તેમાાં લખેલ તમામ વિગત ખરી છે. મર્ુુમ સુભાષભાઇ દ્રારા તેમનો મેડીકલ ચેકઅપ પણ કાંપન
