Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam And Ors. vs Dr.Darshan Lal Shivhare
2023 Latest Caselaw 20705 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam And Ors. vs Dr.Darshan Lal Shivhare on 7 December, 2023

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

                            (1)

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR

                        BEFORE

      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
              FIRST APPEAL No. 132 of 2005
BETWEEN :-

1.    BHARTIYA   JEEVAN   BEEMA  NIGAM
      THOUGH,     REGIONAL     MANAGER,
      BHARTIYA   JEEVAN  BEEMA   NIGAM,
      REGIONAL OFFICE 2060 HOSHANGABAD
      ROAD,    MAHARANAPRATAP    NAGAR,
      BHOPAL

2.    MANAGER, DIVISION OFFICE, BHARTIYA
      JEEVAN BEEMA NIGAM, PHOOLBAG, MOTI
      MAHAL, GWALIOR

3.    BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,
      BHARTIYA JEEVAN BEEMA NIGAM RATHI
      BUILDING OPPOSITE NAGAR PALIKA
      PARISHAD, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                             ....APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI K.N.GUPTA SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RINKU
SHAKYA- ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS )

AND
      DR. DARSHANLAL SHIVHARE S/O SHRI
      MOOLCHAND      SHIVHARE, AGED     44
      YEARS, R/O BUS STAND JAURA DISTRICT
      MORENA
                                   .....RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI AMIT LAHOTI- ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
                                            (2)

                   Reserved on         :         05/12/2023
                   Delivered on        :         07/12/2023

      This civil revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                               JUDGEMENT

Appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendant Life Insurance Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 07/01/2005 passed by learned Third Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Suit No.21-A/2002 on the ground:-

(a) that the Trial Court failed in holding the plaintiff to be adopted son of deceased Moolchand, as there was no reliable evidence to hold that factum of adoption as per law was proved.

2. The second ground of appeal is that the purchaser of the insurance policy had deliberately mentioned his age as 46 years whereas at the time of purchasing of the insurance policy, he was of more than 65 years of age, learned Trial Court on this aspect also failed to evaluate the evidence. Material facts were hidden by the purchaser of the insurance policy Moolchand and if subsequently some facts are known to the Insurance company, then it is their duty to reject the claim. Suit was time barred. The suit was filed on 13/03/2002 for declaration in respect of claim. Policy holder Moolchand died on 28/06/1993, therefore, prayer is made for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 07/01/2005 in Civil Suit No.21-A/2002. It was also submitted by the counsel for the appellants that insurance company has deposited all amount in the Trial Court as directed by the Court.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that judgment passed by the Trial Court is well justified on the fact and law and therefore, appeal may be rejected.

4. The issue before this Court is whether any interference can be made in the judgment of the Trial Court on account of the pleadings and evidence.

5. Before considering the appeal on facts and law, it would be appropriate to refer the issues framed by the Trial Court alongwith decisions on it, which reads as under:-

^^okniz'u                                                       fu"d"kZ


1&     D;k oknh e`rd ewypan f'kogjs ds nRrdiq= gS vkSj          ÞgkaßA

oknh dh ifjofj'k fy[kkbZ&i<+kbZ mlds nRrd firk ewypan f'kogjs us djok;h gS \ 2& D;k mDr ewypan f'kogjs dk chek 50]000@& :i;s ÞgkaßA dk ikWfylh dzekad &2000856935 ds }kjk izfroknh dz01 ls 3 us fd;k ,oa izfr frekghi'pkr~ 620@& izfroknhx.k ds ÞgkaßA dk;kZy; esa fd'r Hkjus ds fy;s ewypan f'kogjs dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k \ 3& D;k ewypan f'kogjs us oknh ds i{k esa gh bl ikfylh esa ÞgkaßA ukehus'ku fd;k \ 4& D;k oknh ds firk us 620@& :i;s dh izFke frekgh ÞgkaßA fd'r fnukad&10&03&93 dks izfroknh ds dk;kZy; esa tek djkdj jlhn izkIr dh ,oa blds ckn f}rh; fd'r Hkh 21&06&1993 dks tek djkdj jlhn izkIr dh \ 5& D;k fnukad 28&06&1993 dks 'kke 7&00 cts ds ÞgkaßA djhc ewypan f'kogjs g`n;?kkr ls fu/ku gks x;k \ 6& D;k oknh us izfroknh ds dk;kZy; esa ;g lwpuk nh fd ÞgkaßA ewypan f'kogjs dk fu/ku gks tkus ls bl ikfylh ds rgr ns; jkf'k oknh dks ukehus'ku ds vk/kkj ij fnyk;h tkos \ 7& D;k izfroknhx.k }kjk chek ikfylh dk Hkqxrku oknh dks ugha fd;k gSA ugha fd;k x;k gS \ 8& D;k ewypan f'kogjs }kjk viuh lgh vk;q fNikdj vizekf.kr vlR; vk;q vafdr djok;h x;h gS \

9& D;k oknh us tks U;k; 'kqYd vnk fd;k gS] og mfpr gS \ ÞgkaßA 10& D;k okn vof/k ckgj gS \ vof/k esa gS 11& lgk;rk vkSj O;; \ fu.kZ; pj.k&29 ds vuqlkj**

6. Heard the learned counsels and perused the record.

7. It is seen that the ground whether the plaintiff was the son of the deceased Moolchand or not, is really not important as in the insurance policy Ex.P-1 M.C.Shivhare his son Dr. Darshanlal Shivhare is a nominee, therefore, a nominee would always be entitled if not as a adopted son but as a nominee to receive the money under policy, on this, learned Trial Court had framed issue No.3 and 6 regarding nomination, therefore, all objection regarding whether Darshanlal was really a adopted son as per law or not becomes baseless. Accordingly, appeal on this ground fails.

8. Another ground is that while purchasing the policy, age of the deceased was deliberately mentioned incorrectly. On this aspect issue No.8 has been framed, but learned counsel for the appellants/defendants - insurance company has failed to bring on record any reliable evidence, by which it can be ascertained satisfactorily regarding actual age of deceased. It is a case of the defendants that Moolchand at the time of purchasing policy was more than 70 years and some other person stood in his place and, therefore, this mistake occurred but later on after obtaining voter list this error came into knowledge of appellant insurance company. It is further submitted that another son of Moolchand namely Ramjilal, in his Higher Secondary mark-sheet his date of birth was mentioned 07/01/1953, therefore, Moolchand cannot be held to be of 46 years of the age.

9. In Smt. Rami Bai Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1981 MP 69 (D.B.) our own High Court has held that voter list entries have evidentary value but it is not final. In Smt. Shanti Trivedi Vs. Life Insurance

Corporation AIR 1988 Delhi 39 Delhi High Court has held that in voter list age entries is by approximation of age and has corroborative value and not worthy of much credence. In Allianz Und Stuttgarter Life Insurance Bank Ltd. Vs. Hamanta Kumar Das AIR 1938 Calcutta 641 Calcutta High Court has held that if in a proposal, if person is shown to be more than 45 years, then his age verification should be done by the insurance company.

10. It is seen from the record of the Trial Court and judgment that proposal Ex.P-4 by Moolchand was submitted in which he has claimed his age as 46 years. After the issuance of policy and taking a premium as per receipt Ex.P-3 dated 21/06/1993 policy was issued but subsequently when claim was filed, then all types of documents were asked from the nominee plaintiff-Darshanlal by letter Ex.P-8 asking for correct date of birth, information about the age of the mother, brother and sister, education certificate and by letter dated Ex.P-1 nominee asked to decide the application on record for payment of claim which was dismissed and the application for review was dismissed by Ex.P-

10.

11. On the perusal of the record, it is seen that such type of blunders could not have been caused without the gross negligence of the staff of the Life Insurance Corporation why photo of the policy holder and other documents subsequently asked for were not obtained before issuing the policy. Why further investigation was not done regarding the policy issued on 20/04/1993 before his death on 28/06/1993. It is further noted that proposal for policy was submitted on 27/02/1993 and policy issued on 20/04/1993, therefore, there was a delay almost of two months. After the death of insured person, there was no reliable evidence, then there was no ground for the Trial Court to reject the suit. It is a well settled law that strong suspicion cannot take place of the evidence.

12. As far as voter list is concerned, it is a common knowledge that many a time in voter list, many type of discrepancies regarding name, age, name of father and address, creeps in some times a person who is living in a area for many years, his name may be deleted by clerical mistakes from voter list and a person who has expired his name can be found in the voter list.

13. Therefore, objection regarding age in appeal also fails, looking to the way in which processing of the application for issuance of a policy was carried out.

14. Another objection is regarding the limitation, on this aspect, learned Trial Court has correctly held that earlier the suit was filed in the Court of civil judge, it was directed to file in the competent court, therefore, suit was filed in the Court of learned Additional District Judge and on this ground limitation was condoned and trigger point for limitation as seen from the report is Ex.P-10 dated 24/11/1998 on which application for reconsidering the payment by Ex.P-10 was dismissed, therefore, suit cannot be held to be time barred. It seems that there are no other legal representative is interested in obtaining the amount under policy, therefore, nominee can be treated as a trustee. Therefore, after considering all evidence and record, this Court is of the considered view that this appeal fails and is dismissed.

15. Both parties to bear their own cost in the facts and circumstances of the case.

16. Let decree be drawn up, accordingly and record the Trial Court be sent back alongwith copy of this order.

                                                              (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

Pj'S/-                                                                    JUDGE

         PRINCEE
         BARAIYA
         2023.12.08
         11:51:41 +05'30'