Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gharohari Devi
Summary
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bihar dismissed an appeal by Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company, claiming the policyholder misrepresented their age when obtaining the policy. The Commission found that the Insurance Company had not met its burden of proof, as the advisor completed the proposal form after confirming the policyholder’s age. The Complainant filed a complaint with the District Commission, citing aggravation. The District Commission accepted the case and awarded the complainant compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- to cover legal expenses. The Commission emphasized that an individual’s age can be determined by observing their face and physical characteristics.
About the case
An appeal filed by Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company, which alleged that the policy holder had misrepresented their age when obtaining the policy, was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench, which is made up of Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr. Ram Prawesh Das (Member), and Mr. Shamim Akhtar (Member). The State Commission determined that the Insurance Company had not met its burden of proof because the advisor for the company completed the proposal form after confirming the policyholder’s age.
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited (“Insurance Company”) sold an insurance policy to Gharohari Devi’s (“Complainant”) spouse, who designated the Complainant as the policy’s nominee. When he applied for the coverage, he gave his age as 47 years old. But the complainant’s spouse passed away in less than two months. The Complainant filed a claim with the Insurance Company and included all necessary supporting documentation. But the Insurance Company refused to resolve the claim despite several efforts to do so and failed to provide a good explanation for their actions. The Complainant lodged a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar, citing feelings of aggravation.
The Complainant’s husband lied about his age while obtaining an insurance policy, according to the Insurance Company, which is why the claim was rejected. Two documents were included: a copy of the voter list and a certificate from a Panchayat Samiti member stating that the deceased husband was ’78 years old’. The District Commission accepted the case and gave the complainant compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-along with Rs. 5,000/-to cover legal expenses.
The State Commission noted that the Insurance Company was unable to demonstrate that the Complainant’s spouse had committed fraud and misrepresented himself because the Insurance Company’s own Life Advisor completed the proposal form in his presence after confirming his age. The State Commission added that an individual’s age may be determined just by observing their face and physical characteristics, and that they are unable to hide their age.
