Page 75 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 75

the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal and the said expert after
comparing the signatures of the insured on the proposal form (marked A1 to A3)
with the signatures on the medical report (marked Q1) opined that the person who
wrote the signatures marked A1 to A3 did not write the signatures marked Q1.
However, the aforesaid expert was not produced by the petitioner-corporation as
a witness before the District Forum. In these circumstances, the District Forum
did not have the benefit of an expert opinion as regards the author of the signa-
ture appearing at Q1 on the medical report dated 10-06-2003.
6. In these circumstances we are of the considered view that the matter
needs to be remanded back to the District Forum with a liberty to both the parties
to examine their respective handwriting experts, on the question as to whether the
signature at Q1 on the medical report dated 10-06-2003 tally with the signature
marked A1 to A3 on the proposal form submitted by the insured or not. The Dis-
trict Forum shall give only one opportunity each to both the parties to examine
their respective handwriting experts. Opportunity for cross-examination by way of
interrogatories shall also be given to the opposite party. The District Forum shall
decide the complaint afresh after considering the depositions of the handwriting
experts produced before it and the report of the aforesaid experts.”
2. Pursuant to the order of this Commission dated 17.10.2014, the petitioner
corporation examined a handwriting expert before the District Forum to prove that the
signatures on the proposal dated 5.6.2003 differed from the signatures on the medical
report dated 10.6.2003, meaning thereby that the proposer himself had not appeared
before the doctor who medically examined him vide report dated 10.6.2003. In the
absence of any handwriting expert from the complainant, the expert opinion produced
by the petitioner corporation needs to be accepted and, therefore, it stands established
that a person other than the insured himself impersonated the insured before the doc-
tor at the time of the medical examination. The aforesaid impersonation obviously
could not have been possible without the insured himself being a party to it. The in-
surance policy, therefore, was obtained by playing a fraud upon the petitioner corpo-
ration, by making some person other than insured appear before the doctor at the time
of medical examination. The purpose of such impersonation obviously would be to
rule out the possibility of the doctor detecting the illness/disease from which the in-
sured might be suffering, during the course of the medical check-up. The insurance
policy having been obtained by playing a fraud upon the insurer, the contract of in-
surance was voidable at the option of the insurer. The complainant, therefore, was not
entitled to the benefit of the insurance policy taken in the aforesaid fraudulent man-
ner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount which the in-
sured had paid to the petitioner corporation shall be refunded to the complainant
along with interest on that amount @ 9% p.a. The impugned orders are, therefore, set
aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed subject to the petitioner refunding
the amount paid to it by the insured along with interest on that amount @ 9% p.a.
from the date on which the payment was made till the date on which the said amount
is refunded.
4. On the petitioner making payment to the complainant in terms of this order,
the amount which it has deposited with the District Forum, shall be refunded to it

INDEX