Died in 1994 or 2013? Bihar insurance mystery reaches apex consumer body, ends in Rs 50 lakh payout

“The State Commission after appreciating the entire evidence have correctly come to a finding that the deceased/life assured died on 29.03.2013 and not in 1994 as claimed by the Insurance Company. We are in agreement with such a finding of the State Commission. The State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with its findings,” the national consumer commission said on April 7.

Death that sparked legal puzzle

At the heart of the dispute is Bihar resident Sushil Kumar Singh, who took out a Rs 50 lakh life insurance policy in December 2012. Barely three months later, Singh was critically injured in a road accident on March 16, 2013, and died on March 29, 2013, during treatment.

For his brother and nominee, Anmol Kumar Singh, the claim seemed straightforward. But not for the insurer.

Dr Inder Jit Singh and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain were hearing an appeal challenging the Bihar state consumer panel’s order.

In March 2014, the insurer rejected the claim, advancing a dramatic theory – Singh had actually died in 1994, and the entire policy was built on forged documents, essentially accusing the family of insuring a “dead man.” The company pointed to an alleged investigation and scattered official communications to support its claim. But when the case reached the consumer commission, those claims began to unravel.

Missing proof

The consumer panel found glaring holes in the insurer’s argument. There was no investigation report on record. No conclusive document proving the 1994 death. Even key references, such as police records and replies to queries under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, were either incomplete or unsupported.

The commission observed that the burden of proof lay on the insurer, which it failed to discharge.

Trail of evidence tells another story

• In contrast, the complainant presented a detailed paper trail that painted a very different picture of a man alive well into the 2010s.
• The records included bank documents updated till 2012, income tax returns filed in 2012, medical records from March 2013, FIR and police documents following the accident, and a legally issued death certificate.
• Together, these established that Sushil Kumar Singh died on March 29, 2013, not in 1994.
• The commission also accepted that confusion may have arisen because another brother, Jalebi Singh, had died in 1994 in a railway accident.
• The national consumer commission said that the insurance company failed to prove that the deceased died in 1994, much prior to the obtaining of the policy.
• The onus to prove such contention lies on the insurance company, which they have not been able to discharge successfully, the consumer commission said, adding that on the other hand, the complainant has “adduced sufficient reliable evidence, both documentary and otherwise” to establish that the insured died on March 29, 2013, and not in 1994.
• The person who died in 1994 was possibly another brother of the complainant (Jalebi Singh) and not the deceased/life insured Sushil Kumar Singh, noted the commission.

‘Deficiency in service’: Strong rebuke

The Bihar State Consumer Commission had earlier ruled in favour of the nominee and directed the insurer to pay Rs 50 lakh, along with 6 per cent interest, from July 4, 2014, Rs 20,000 as compensation, and Rs 10,000 as litigation costs.

Upholding this order, the national consumer commission described it as well-reasoned and dismissed the insurer’s appeal filed in 2017. It also endorsed the finding that rejecting a claim without credible proof amounts to “deficiency in service” under consumer law.

Cautionary tale for insurers

Beyond the individual dispute, the ruling sends a broader signal to insurance companies that allegations of fraud must be backed by solid evidence, not suspicion. For consumers, the judgment highlights that persistence and documentation can prevail even in complex and long-drawn legal battles. In the end, what began as a claim about a “man who died twice” ended with the law restoring both facts and justice.