3 days ago
Age in voter list not legal document to prove age of policy holder: Consumer forum
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Future Generali India Life Insurance Co Ltd to pay Rs 35 lakh to the family of deceased Vadodara resident Ramdev Sharma.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The insurance company had earlier denied the family's claim, alleging that Sharma had misrepresented his age while applying for the life insurance policies.
The controversy began when Sharma applied online for two life insurance policies in 2013, declaring his age as 57, supported by his PAN card. However, following his death in 2015, the company rejected the claim filed by his grandson, Shudanshuarya, stating that Sharma was actually 97 years old at the time of application.
The insurer based this claim on entries in the 2010 and 2014 voter lists and the Parivar Patrak, which suggested Sharma was much older.
In response, Sharma's grandson submitted multiple government-issued identity documents—including his PAN card, Aadhaar card, and election card—all indicating Sharma was born in 1957. He argued that these documents were more reliable than the voter lists, which the family claimed were inaccurate.
After reviewing the evidence, the commission sided with Sharma's family. In its order, it stated: "The age of deceased life assured shown in voter list of 2010 and 2014 and Parivar Patrak cannot be said to be valid and legal document to prove the age of policy holder than the age of policy holder shown in PAN card, Election card and Aadhaar card on which complainant placed reliance."
The commission further criticized the insurance company for mishandling the claim, stating: "We are of the considered opinion that the complainant successfully proved that opponent insurance company committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by repudiation of genuine claim of deceased life policy holder and as such, complainant is entitled to get the relief as claimed."
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Consequently, the commission ordered the company to pay the Rs 35 lakh claim amount along with 7% interest. Additionally, the insurer has been directed to pay Rs 35,000 as compensation for mental harassment and the inconvenience caused to the 123195420 413 |
