BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, BETIAH, BIHAR

C.C. No.11/2018

Lal Babu Shah ……………Complainant

Versus

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd & Anr ………Opposite Parties

REPLY ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES IN RESPONSE TO THE

CONSUMER COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

1. That Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Formerly known as

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) is a life insurance company, being

registered under the provisions of Section 3 of the Insurance Act,

1938 and the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is

engaged in the business of providing life insurance cover to its

customers across the length and breadth of the country under

license from IRDA (Insurance Regulatory & Development

Authority).

2. That the present registered address of the Opposite Parties is H,

Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-

400710.

3. That the Opposite Parties are the officials of Reliance Life Insurance

Company Limited and there being no conflict between Opposite

 Parties, a common Written Statement is being filed on behalf of

Opposite Parties.

4. That at the outset, the Opposite Parties deny all the allegations

contained in the complaint, except those, which are specifically

admitted hereinafter in this Written Statement, and nothing stated

in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because

the same is not specifically traversed. It is also submitted that,

anything stated in the complaint contrary to and/or inconsistent

with what is stated in the present written statement be deemed to

be expressly denied.

5. That the Opposite Parties crave leave of the Honorable Forum

reserve its right to further submit relevant documents and

arguments as and when procured by the Opposite Parties in support

and in addition to the arguments herein submitted in reply to the

instant Complaint Petition.

6. That before submitting a paragraph wise reply to the present

complaint, the Opposite Parties crave leave of this Honorable Forum

to submit the following preliminary objections which goes to the

very root of maintainability of present dispute before the Honorable

Forum and which needs to be considered by the Honorable Forum

before adjudicating the present complaint on merit.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1. That the present complaint is false, frivolous, and vexatious as

well as abuse of the process of this Hon’ble Forum and therefore,

the same is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of The

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the Act).

2. That the present complaint does not raise any Consumer dispute

as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and therefore the same

is liable to be dismissed.

3. That the claim of the Complaint is not maintainable as it does not

have any valid ground whatsoever and the Complainant has filed

this complaint to mislead this Hon’ble forum and obtain undue gains

from the Opposite Parties.

4. That the complainant was also provided with the option of “Freelook

Period” in which he neither replied nor submitted anything which

could show that he was not interested in the policy or was not

agreed to the terms and conditions. This shows that he completely

understood the terms and conditions of the policy and opted the

same for further benefit. The Supreme Court has held that once

the freelook period has been waived it cannot be revived again.

Freelook Period: The policyholder is offered 15 days free look

period for a policy sold through all channels from the date of receipt

of the policy wherein the policyholder may choose to return the

policy within 15 days / 30 days of receipt if s/he is not agreeable

with any of the terms and conditions of the plan. If s/he chooses to

return the policy, s/he shall be entitled to a refund of the premium

paid after adjustment for the expenses of medical examination,

stamp duty and proportionate risk premium for the period of cover.

A policy once returned shall not be revived, reinstated or restored

at any point of time and a new proposal will have to be made for a

new policy. This provision is nothing but the option to cancel the

policy.
 In a landmark case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra &

others (AIR 2001 (4) SC 323) the court held that after issuance

of the policy, the policy along with the proposal form was again sent

to the life assured and there is specific reference in the written

statement that the same were sent to life assured and he had 15

days "Free Look Period" to cancel the same but during that

period he did not get his policy cancelled, therefore, now he

cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. The

relation of the assured and the insurance are sacrosanct and are

based upon belief of each other and it is also legal presumption that

in case any party signs any document, there is presumption that he

knows the contents of the document unless contrary is proved. But

in the given case, there is nothing on the record which

shows that the life assured did know nothing about the

terms and conditions of the policy duly signed by him. He

was given ample opportunity to cancel the policy during the

freelook period if the policy is contrary to what the insurer

wants. But the complainant readily agreed to the terms and

conditions of the policy.

5. That the contract of Insurance is based on the rocky foundation of

good faith i.e. “Principle of Uberrimae Fides”. The policy is a

legal contract between Life Assured and the Insurer and they both

are bound by its terms and conditions. Under the contract of

insurance, the Life Assured is under solemn obligation to disclose all

the material facts to the insurer at the time of taking or revival of

the insurance policy failing which the policy is rendered void, illegal

and unenforceable. There are catenas of judgments on this issue

mentioned therein: In case of A Sanjeeva Narayan vs National

Insurance Co. Ltd the National Commission Disputes Redressal

Forum held that it is a well settled law that the contract of

insurance is the contract of Uberrima Fide for both the parties which

is insured and insurer. The National Commission further upheld the

judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which stated that

the Doctrine of Uberrima fide applies where the petitioner

deliberately tries to mislead the court.

Further, the Commission further cited Life Insurance Corporation of

India vs Shiamim wherein it was held that in a contract of insurance,

there is requirement of Uberrima fide on the part of the insured and

the insured has duty to disclose accurately all the facts which would

influence a reasonable insurer in accepting the risk. In case of Life

Insurance Corporation of India &Ors. vs Smt. Asha Goel &

Anr. the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the contracts of

insurance including the contract of life assurance are contracts

Uberrima fides and every fact of material must be disclosed,

otherwise, there is good ground for rescission of the contract. The

duty to disclose material facts continues right upto the conclusion of

the contract and also implies any material alteration in the

character of the risk which may take place between the proposal

and its acceptance. If there are any misstatements or suppression

of material facts, the policy can be called in question. For

determination of the question whether there has been suppression

of any material facts it may be necessary to also examine whether

the suppression relates to a fact which is in the exclusive

knowledge of the person intending to take the policy and it could

not be ascertained by reasonable enquiry by a prudent person. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon Life Insurance Corporation

of India vs. Smt. G. M. Channabasamma (1991) (1) SCC 357,

in which it was held that a contract of insurance is contract

Uberrima fides and there must be complete good faith on the part

of the assured. The assured is thus under a solemn obligation to

make full disclosure of material facts which may be relevant for the

insurer to take into account while deciding whether the proposal

should be accepted or not. While making a disclosure of the

relevant facts, the duty of the insured to state them correctly

cannot be diluted. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M.K.J.

Corporation It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is a

fundamental principle of Insurance Law that utmost good faith must

be observed by the contracting parties. Good faith forbids either

party from concealing (non-disclosure) what he privately knows, to

draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact and

his believingthe contrary. Just as the insured has a duty to disclose,

"similarly, it is the duty of the insurers andtheir agents to disclose

all material facts within their Knowledge, since obligation of good

faithapplies to them equally with the assured. Life Insurance

Corporation &Ors. vs Lakhbir Kaur &Ors. The State Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum in the instant case relying on various

judgments held that in case the insured deliberately and

 intentionally gives false statement regarding his age in the proposal

form, he has committed the breach of good faith.

That in the present case, there was gross concealment and

misrepresentation of “Age of Life Assured”. The Deceased Life

Assured in the present case concealed the fact about his age and

gave false information in the proposal form. The Deceased Life

Assured grossly understated his age as 48 years at the time of

taking the policy whereas; in reality his age was 80 years at the

time of taking the policy. It is further submitted that he misled the

insurer to offer his insurance on the terms as stated in policy

schedule. If the correct age had been declared at the proposal stage,

the Opposite Parties would not have issued the policies because as

per the terms and conditions of the policy the maximum entry age

is 65 years.

6. That it is relevant to mention that, age stated by the customer is

the basis of calculating the Human Life Value (HLV) and for risk

assessment purpose. Understatement of age was material to the

issuance of the policy and ought to have been disclosed in the

proposal form. By not doing so, the Life Assured misled the

Opposite Parties to grant insurance cover on the terms as stated in

the Policy Schedule.

Concealment of Material facts

The complainant has intentionally concealed the material facts

regarding his age, income and occupation from the opposite party

in order to gain undue and unlawful advantage from the opposite

party. The claim has been rightly repudiated by the opposite party
 for violating the terms and conditions and concealing the material

facts by the complainant. The supreme court has held in catena of

judgments that any material suppression or concealment of fact will

render the policy void and the benefits will not be given. Some of

the judgments have been reproduced below:

In case of Ratan Lal And Anr. vs Metropolitan Insurance Co.

Ltd Hon’ble Patna High Court relying upon the judgment in

Thomson v. Weems, (1884) 9 AC 671 stated that any fact which

tends to suggest that the life insured is likely to fall short of the

average duration is a material fact. The Hon’ble Court further stated

that life assurance is nothing but a scientific assessment of an

average duration of a life, and that is not possible unless all correct

data about that life are diligently and faithfully made available to

the company. The Hon’ble Court further stated that the border line

between what is material and what is not material is more often

than not so faint and dim that there is always a danger of one being

taken for the other. Therefore, in order to avoid this danger one has

to be careful in drawing a distinction between what is illness or

material change in health and what is ordinary simple disorder. A

disorder is not one 'tending to shorten life' simply from the

circumstance that the assured dies from it.

7. That the Deceased Life Assured while filling the Proposal Form

stated that he is a business man (supervision) and his annual

income is around Rs. 60,000/- whereas after investigation it was

found that he was an old age person and had no source of income.
8. The dichotomy in the facts presented by the Complainant shows

that the story is an afterthought and the facts have been fabricated

by the Complainant in order to gain undue monetary advantage

from the Opposite Parties.

9. That owing to above-mentioned reasons, the Opposite Parties were

misled to offer the said policy and has thus rendered the policy void,

illegal, invalid and unenforceable. Therefore, the present complaint

is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

10. That the Complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Court with

clean hands and has suppressed the material fact, just to misguide

this Hon’ble Court.

11. That the present Complaint is not maintainable and the

Complainant is not entitled for any benefit under the subject policy.

The Opposite Parties under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938

can repudiate the claim of the policy in question on the ground of

concealment of material facts with respect to “Age”. Thus, the

present Complaint is liable to be dismissed. Section 45 of the

Insurance Act, 1938 has been reproduced herein below:

Section 45: Policy not to be called in question on

ground of mis-statement after two years: No policy of

life insurance effected before the commencement of this Act

shall after the expiry of two years from the date of

commencement of this Act and no policy of life insurance

effected after the coming into force of this Act shall after the

expiry of two years from the date on which it was effected,

be called in question by an insurer on the ground that a

 statement made in the proposal for insurance or in any

report of a medical officer, or referee, or friend of the insured,

or in any other document leading to the issue of the policy,

was inaccurate or false, unless the insurer shows that such

statement was on a material matter or suppressed facts

which it was material to disclose and that it was fraudulently

made by the policy-holder and that the policy-holder knew at

the time of making it that the statement was false or that it

suppressed facts which it was material to disclose

Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the

insurer from calling for proof of age at any time if he is

entitled to do so, and no policy shall be deemed to be

called in question merely because the terms of the

policy are adjusted on subsequent proof that the age

of the life insured was incorrectly stated in the

proposal.

12. That the claim of the Complainant is based on the policy which was

obtained fraudulently, dishonestly and by misrepresentation of

material fact with regard to age of the Deceased Life Assured. Since

the issuance of the subject policy is an outcome of falsehood,

therefore, the Complainant is not entitled for any benefit or relief

under the subject policy and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

13. That this Hon’ble forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present

complaint. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the

part of the Opposite Parties. It is stated that “Deficiency” is

defined under Section 2 (1) (g) of The Consumer Protection Act,

 1986 which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or

inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance,

which is required to be maintained in pursuance of the contract. In

the present case, the claim of the Claimant was repudiated on the

ground of concealment of the material facts regarding the “Age of

Life Assured’’ before the issuance of the Policies in question.

14. That in Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs. New India Assurance

Company Ltd.2009 CTJ 956, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

specifically held that the contract of insurance is a contract of

utmost good faith. Any information, which is material for entering

into an insurance contract, if not disclosed, will entitle the insurer to

repudiate the claim for concealment of fact.

15. That in a recent judgment of TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE

CO.LTD v. Orissa State Co-Operative Bank & ANR, (2012) CPJ

310 (NC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the terms

“Material Fact” in the judgment.

The terms “material fact” is not defined in the Act and

therefore it has been understood and explained by the Courts

in general terms to mean as any fact which would influence

the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium

or determining whether he would like to accept the risk. Any

fact which goes to the root of the Contract of Insurance and

has a bearing on the risk involved would be “material”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Insurance Company

rightly repudiated the claim as the Insured has suppressed the

material fact.
16. That in the case of P.C. Chako and Anr Vs Chairman, Life

Insurance Corporation of India and Ors, 2008 CPJ, 78 SC, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

“If a person makes a wrong statement with knowledge of

consequence thereof, he would ordinarily be stopped from

pleading that even if such a fact had been disclosed; it would

not have made any material changes. The purpose for taking

policy insurance is not, in our opinion very material. It may

serve the purpose of social security but then the same should

not be obtained with a fraudulent act by the insured.

Proposal can be repudiated if a fraudulent act is discovered.

The proposer must show that her intention was bona fide. It

must appear from the face of the record. In a case of this

nature it was not necessary from the insurer to establish that

the suppression was fraudulently made by the Life Assured or

that he must have been aware at the time of making the

statement that the same was false or that the fact was

suppressed which was material to disclose. A deliberate

wrong answer which has a great bearing on the contract of

insurance, if discovered may lead to the policy being vitiated

in Law”

17. That it is submitted that the non-disclosure amounts to fraud and

the Complainant cannot take the benefit of its owns wrongs. It has

been stated U/s 19, of The Contract Act (9 of 1872)-

Explanation – “Fraud or Misrepresentation not causing

consent to contract – Does not render Contract Voidable –

 Person who knows and claims about discontinuity of

relationship, supposed to disclose about discontinuity – If not,

it must amount to fraudulent misrepresentation or active

concealment of fact by one having knowledge or belief of fact

--- Since P.N. was no more partner of Opposite Parties firm

at time of executing ‘Article of Contract’, non-disclosure of

such fact certainly amounted to fraud---It amounted to active

concealment of material fact by one having knowledge of

correct facts. (S.N. Kapoor, J.) Sita Holiday Resorts

Limited V. M/s. Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana and

Company. (1999-3) 123 P.L.R.D.28

18. That is a settled law that if it is proved that the claimant or the

proposer has concealed the material facts in the proposal form then

the claim should be repudiated by the insurer-as the same has been

held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission in its judgment titled as Dineshbhai Chandrana vs.

LIC & Anr. – First Appeal No. - 242/2006, Decided on Dt.

27.07.2006.

19. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in LIC & Ors Vs Asha Goel

(Smt.) & Anr (2001) 2 SCC 160 has clearly held :

“The contracts of Insurance including the Contract of Life

assurance are contracts Uberrimma Fides and every

material fact must be disclosed, otherwise, there is good

ground for rescission of the contract. The duty to disclose

material facts continues right up to the conclusion of the

contract and also implies any material alteration in the

 character of the risk which may take place between the

proposal and its acceptance. If there are any mis-statements

or suppression of material facts, the policy can be called into

question. For the determination of the question whether

there has been suppression of any material facts it may be

necessary to also examine whether the suppression relates to

a fact which is in the exclusive knowledge of the person

intending to take the policy and it could not be ascertained

by reasonable enquiry by a prudent person.”

20. That the Opposite Parties had taken into consideration the

provisions of Section 2 (d) of the Protection of Policyholders’

Interests Regulations, 2002, at the time of issuing the policy to

the life assured. That Section 2(d) of the Protection of Policyholders’

Interests Regulations, 2002, reads as herein under:

Section 2(d) of the Protection of Policyholders’ Interests)

Regulations, 2002 - all material information needs to be disclosed

by the proposer for insurance, which are required by the insurer in

respect of a risk, in order to enable the insurer to decide whether to

accept or decline, to undertake the risk, and in the event of

acceptance of the risk, to determine the rates, terms and conditions

of a cover to be granted. As per explanation attached to the section

“Material” for the purpose of these regulations shall mean and

include all important, essential, and relevant information in the

context of underwriting the risk to be covered by the insurer.

 21. That it is stated that the contract of insurance is based on trust that

the person who obtains insurance is required to inform the

complete and true details pertaining to her “Age’’ as the same

would have an effect on the decision of the insurer to issue the

insurance policy and therefore any policy obtained by concealing

material facts would have been obtained by concealment and thus

such a contract is null and void and therefore the Opposite Parties

have rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant and therefore,

the Complaint is liable to be rejected.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. That Late Mr. Mr. JAGARNATH SAH (hereinafter referred as

Policyholder or Deceased Life Assured) submitted duly filled up

and signed application form (Also known as Proposal Form) for

insurance on her life on 31-March-2018, the details of which is given

herein under:

Name Mr. JAGARNATH SAH

Policy Number 50897041

Company Name Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Plan Reliance Cash Flow Plan

Premium Term 16 Years

Policy Term 16 Years

Proposal Date
 Policy Commencement Date 31.03.2018

Date of Death 07.11.2016

Policy duration

Sum Assured (Rs) Rs. 1,50,000.00/-

Policy Premium(Rs) Rs. 60,691/-

Claim Rejection Date 01.04.2016

On the ground of suppression

and concealment of material
Cause of Claim Rejection
facts regarding “Age’’ of Life
Assured

That the Opposite Parties in the instant petition submits that

believing the information given by the Deceased Life Assured in the

Proposal Forms to be true and correct in all aspects and as per the

underwriting norms of the Company, the said proposals were

accepted by the Opposite Parties and the Deceased Life Assured

was issued the Policy bearing No. 50897041

A copy of the Proposal Form is

attached herewith and has been

marked as Annexure A

2. That the Opposite Parties received claim intimation about the death

of the Life Assured on 7 November 2017 and to check the

genuineness of the claim investigation needed to take place and for

the same the Complainant was asked to submit necessary

 documents to assess the authenticity of the claim vide letter dated

18-March-2016.

A copy of the Death Claim Form

is attached herewith and has been

marked as Annexure B

A copy of the letter dated 20-

June-2017 has been attached

herewith and has been marked as

Annexure C.

3. That on receipt of relevant documents, investigation was done by

Opposite Parties in order to assess the legitimacy of the claim. On

investigation, the Opposite Parties came across the following

appalling facts and revelation:

 That there is huge discrepancy with regard to true age

of the Life Assured and the same has been grossly

misrepresented and understated by the Deceased Life

Assured in the Proposal Form.

 That the Life Assured had grossly understated his age

as 48 years at the time of taking the policy, whereas in

reality the Life Assured was approximately 80 years.

The Voter List of 2017 was procured in order to ensure

that the age of the DLA as per the Proposal Form was

genuine.

It is relevant to mention that Voter List is prepared

under the Representation of Peoples Act is a public

record within the meaning of Section 35 of the

 Evidence Act and a public document within the

meaning of Section 74(1) (iii) of the Evidence Act and

is admissible in evidence as such.

A copy of the Voter List of 2017

has been attached herewith and

has been marked as Annexure D.

 That the Life Assured had mentioned his occupation as

Business (supervision) in the Proposal Form and his

income to be around Rs. 60,000/- whereas in reality

he was an old age person and had no source of income.

 Other alternative proof of age, such as; Aadhar Card,

Ration Card Copy of the Deceased Life Assured was

not made available by the Complainant. Further voter

card presented shows that on 1.1.1995 the age of

deceased life insured was 65 years.

From the above records, it is manifested that the Deceased Life

Assured has indulged in gross misrepresentation and

understatement of age, occupation as well as income at the time of

issue of the policy and the non-disclosure of these facts were

material to the issuance of the policy and ought to have been

disclosed by the Deceased Life Assured. The Life Assured had

deliberately misled the Opposite Parties and the authorities by

concealing the above material information by furnishing false replies

in Proposal Form in order to grab the insurance cover to him which

is clear breach of the conditions of the contract and violation of good

faith and shows the fraudulent and dishonest intention.

4. That Clause 14 of the “Terms & conditions” the Policy Document

clearly states that if the age of the Life Assured as at the Policy

Commencement Date is found to be higher than the maximum or

lower than the minimum entry age that was permissible under the

plan of this Policy at the time of its issue, this Policy shall become

void from commencement.

A copy of relevant Term and

Condition is attached herewith

and has been marked as

Annexure E.

In the light of afore-mentioned point, it is to state that repudiation is

just and bonafide as there has been understatement and

misrepresentation of age at the time of filling of proposal form.

5. That in view of the above mentioned facts and irrefutable evidence,

the contract stands void ab initio and the claim under the said policy

was repudiated by the Opposite Parties and the same was

communicated to the Complainant vide letter dated 01-April-2016.

A copy of the Repudiation Letter

dated 30-June-2017 is attached

herewith and has been marked as

Annexure F.

6. That it is further submitted that by concealing material facts in the

Proposal Form at the time of issuance of the policy in question, the

Opposite Parties were denied of the opportunity to assess the risk of

the issuance of the policy in question. The Life Assured was under

solemn obligation to disclose all the facts and correctly in the

 Proposal Form at the time of applying subject policy. The Opposite

Parties were led to issue the subject policy by suppression of

material fact regarding the “Age”.

In the light of above submissions and irrefutable evidence the

Opposite Parties submit that it was constrained to repudiate the

claim under the terms and conditions of the policy in terms of

Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938.

7. That it is relevant to state here that the claim is paid by any

Insurance Company out of the common pool of funds belonging to

all policyholders of the Company and Insurance Company has to

check the genuineness of a claim before honoring it. The Insurance

Company cannot do injustice to genuine policyholders by allowing

ingenious and false claims.

PARAWISE REPLY

It is pertinent here to note that the complainant has not framed his complaint
paragraph wise. The opposite party craves leave of the court to submit reply in
general. That before reply to the merits of the case, the contents of preliminary
objections and facts of the case shall be treated as part and parcel in response
to the respective Paragraphs and anything contrary thereto or inconsistent
therewith are wrong and denied and the same is not repeated for the sake of
brevity.
1. That in Reply to Page 1 and Page 2 of the Complaint it is admitted

to the extent it pertains to matter of record. It is further submitted

that the Complainant’s statement about not concealing any material

fact is false and is expressly denied. While filling the Proposal Form

the Deceased Life Assured concealed the material information about

his age, occupation and monthly income. As per the Proposal Form

the age of the DLA was around 48 years whereas, after investigation

it was found that his age was 80 years. Also, the occupation of the

DLA as per the Proposal Form was businessman and his annual

income was around Rs. 60,000/- whereas after investigation it was

found that he was an old age person and did not have any source of

income. It is further stated that the Complainant’s statement that

the DLA has not suppressed any material fact from the Opposite

Parties is false and is vehemently denied. It is further stated that the

DLA while filling the Proposal grossly understated his age as 48

years whereas, after investigation it was found that the age of the

DLA was around 80 years.

It is also stated that the Complainant’s statement about the delay,

laxity and carelessness on the part of branch manager in not

availing the assured sum and benefit and hence causing physical

and mental harassment is false and is concocted by the Complainant

to gain undue monetary advantage from the Opposite Parties.

It is further stated that the claim of the claimant was repudiated on

the ground of concealment of material fact about the age of the

Deceased Life Assured. While filling the proposal form, the Deceased

Life Assured mentioned his age as 48 years whereas after the

investigation it was found that the age of the deceased Life Assured

was 80 years. It is also stated that the repudiation by the Opposite

Parties is justified as it has been done on the basis of established

legal provisions and the terms and conditions of the policy.

 It is further stated that the repudiation by the Opposite Parties is

just and is based on the legal provisions and established precedents.

In the present case the Deceased Life Assured understated her age

in order to take insurance cover from the Opposite Parties. The Life

Assured misled the Opposite Parties in issuing the insurance cover to

her as while filling the Proposal Form she mentioned his occupation

as Businessman and his income to be Rs. 60,000/- whereas, after

investigation it was found that he was an old age person and had no

source of income.

It is further stated that the Claim of the Claimant was repudiated on

the ground of misrepresentation and concealment of the age,

occupation and source of income of the Deceased Life Assured.

2. That the Prayer Clause with all the submissions made therein Page

6 of the Complaint is absolutely wrong and puerile in nature and

therefore is emphatically denied by the Opposite Parties. It is further

stated that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief and

compensation whatsoever and is not entitled to claim and recover

anything from the Opposite Parties in the light of what is stated

above and which is not repeated here again for the sake of brevity.

It is once again stated that the repudiation of Opposite Parties is just

and bonafide. It is further stated that no physical, mental and/or

economical loss is caused to the Complainant owing to any act of the

Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties have always acted within the

purview of law and as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

In view of the above facts and submissions, it is

therefore, most respectfully prayed that the

 present Complaint may be dismissed with

exemplary costs in favor of replying Opposite

Parties and against the Complainant.

And / or

Be further pleased to pass such other

order/orders, direction/directions as your

honour may deem fit and proper.

Opposite Parties

Vidhi Associates

VERIFICATION

I, _______________ the deponent herein above, do hereby

verify that the contents of the above affidavit are true to

the best of my knowledge, ability and belief. Nothing

contained therein is false and nothing has been concealed.

Signed by me on this ….. day of ……. 2018.

Deponent
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
FORUM, BETIAH, BIHAR
C.C. No. 11/2018
Lal Babu ……………Complainant

Versus

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr ……….Opposite Parties

AFFIDAVIT

I, ___________________ working as ___________________ at

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd., do hereby state on

solemn oath as follows:

1. That I am the ________________________ of the Opposite Parties

and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That I further state that I am duly authorized and competent to make

and affirm this affidavit on behalf of the Respondent Company.

3. That the statements made in all the paragraphs of the accompanying

reply are true and correct to the best of my knowledge gathered from

the records of the Company maintained during the ordinary course of

business and are my humble submissions before this Hon’ble Forum.

Deponent

VERIFICATION
I, ________________the deponent herein above, do hereby verify that

the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge,

ability and belief. Nothing contained therein is false and nothing has

been concealed.

Signed by me on this ….. day of …….2018.

Deponent