In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court, presided over by Justice S.K. Panigrahi, has directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to reassess and disburse the claim of the petitioner, Tapaswini Panda, within one week, highlighting the unreliability of voter ID as proof of date of birth in insurance matters.
Background of the Case
The case originated when Tapaswini Panda, the petitioner, sought the settlement of her deceased father’s insurance claim under Policy No. 593967375. Her father, Raghunath Nayak, had taken out three insurance policies with the LIC, and upon his death on 15th March 2012, Panda claimed the assured amount as the nominee. The LIC settled claims for two of the policies but repudiated the third policy, citing a mismatch in the date of birth.
The discrepancy arose because the voter ID listed the deceasedโs age as 67 years, while the insurance policy, based on earlier policies and a school certificate, listed his date of birth as 18th March 1952, making him 59 years old at the time of taking the policy. The LIC invoked Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, to void the policy, leading Panda to challenge the repudiation.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Reliability of Voter ID as Proof of Age: The primary legal issue was whether the voter ID could be considered reliable evidence for determining the insuredโs age, especially when other documents presented a different date of birth.
2. Application of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938: The court had to decide whether the LIC was justified in invoking this section to void the policy based on the age discrepancy found in the voter ID.
3. Contract of Uberrima Fides: The court examined whether the principle of utmost good faith was maintained by both the insured and the insurer, especially in the acceptance of the policy and subsequent rejection of the claim.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice S.K. Panigrahi, while delivering the judgment, observed that insurance policies rely heavily on the accuracy of the insured’s date of birth, as it influences risk assessments and premium calculations. However, he noted that voter IDs, while recognized for civic identification, are not conclusive proof of date of birth, citing precedents from the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court.
The court emphasized that voter IDs are based on self-declared information and often lack verification. Therefore, they cannot override other official documents like school certificates. The judgment also highlighted that the deceasedโs date of birth was consistently listed as 18th March 1952 across all documents except the voter ID, thus questioning the LIC’s reliance on the latter.
Justice Panigrahi remarked, “The Insurance Company erred in rejecting the petitionerโs claim solely on the ground that the deceased insuredโs date of birth, as recorded in the voter ID/voter list, differed from the date of birth stated in his other documents.”
Conclusion and Directives
The Orissa High Court concluded that the LIC’s rejection of the claim was unjustified and ordered the insurer to correct its decision and reassess the claim. The court directed the LIC to disburse the insured amount to Tapaswini Panda within one week from the receipt of the judgment.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Number: WP(C) No. 17627 of 2016
– Bench: Justice S.K. Panigrahi
– Parties Involved: Tapaswini Panda (Petitioner) vs. Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Patna & Ors. (Opposite Parties)
– Advocates: Mr. Debaraj Mohanty for the Petitioner, Mr. J.R. Deo and Mr. G. Misra, Senior Advocate, for the Opposite Parties
