Death Claim - Gbic.co.in

Commission in cases L.I.C. of India vs Smt. Minu Kalita (III 2002 CPJ 10 N.C.) andL.I.C. of India vs Smt. Gangamma & Anr (III 2002 CPJ 56 NC).The complaint is,therefore, dismissed.Chennai Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (CHN) / 21.08.2599 / 2004 - 05Shri V. SelvarasuVs.Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward Dated 15.06.2005Shri V. Selvarasu, S/o Shri Veeraraghava Udayar, the life assured, filed a complaintwith this forum questioning the decision of L.I.C. of India not to pay the claim amountunder the policy on his father’s life on the plea that he had understated his age in theproposal. The policy was taken on 08.06.2000 and the assured died reportedly on21.12.2002. The Insurer’s contention was that the age of the assured was understatedin the proposal by about 21 years and the assured was of uninsurable age at the timeof proposing. This was contested by the complainant.From a careful perusal of all the relevant records and a study of the oral submissionsduring personal hearing, the following points emerged :1. The assured submitted along with the proposal a horoscope, as per which his ageat the time of proposing was 46 years.2. The policy lapsed and the last premium was paid under the lapsed policy after thedeath of the assured.3. During the investigation of the insurer, it came out that the age of the assuredwas around 70 years.4. The insurers collected corroborative age proofs such as Voters’ list and theFamily card of his younger son, as per which the age of the assured in the year ofproposal was 67 years.5. The younger son of the assured wrote a letter to this forum that his father wasaged around 75 - 80 years at the time of death.6. The advocate, who came to represent the complainant during hearing, mentionedthat the complainant himself would be around 40 years of age.7. The Family members issued a printed card in the name of both the sons of thedeceased assured calling the relatives to attend the ‘obsequies’, in which thedate of death was mentioned as 05.10.2002. The premium under the lapsed policywas remitted on 08.10.2002.8. The family procured and submitted to this forum a death certificate, as per whichthe date of death was 21.12.2002.Judging from all the above, this forum decided that the assured grossly understated hisage by 21 years at the time of proposal, which was a clear fraudulentmisrepresentation of material information. Further it is clear that the correct date ofdeath was 05.10.2002 as claimed by the family members, whereas the death certificatecould have been manipulated to make it appear that the last premium was paid wellbefore death.Hence this forum upheld the decision of the Insurers to repudiate the claim on thegrounds of fraudulent misrepresentation of correct age in the proposal. The Complaintis, therefore, dismissed. Reliance was placed on the case Ramabai vs L.I.C., Bhopal