The national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) has upheld the Punjab state consumer commission’s findings against PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd, ruling that the insurer had attempted to forge and manipulate a death certificate to deny a legitimate life insurance claim.
In an order last week, the apex consumer body, led by justice AP Sahi and member Bharatkumar Pandya, dismissed the insurance company’s revision petitions and directed compliance with the state commission’s order which awarded the full sum assured of Rs11.4 lakh to the complainant, Harban Kaur, widow of policyholder, the late Fuman Singh.
The case pertained to a life insurance policy issued on 10 February 2015, under which Mr Singh was insured for Rs11.4 lakh. Mr Singh died just 18 days later, on 28 February 2015. His widow, Ms Kaur, filed a claim, which PNB MetLife repudiated on the grounds that Mr Singh had died before the policy’s issuance. The company relied on a 'corrected' death certificate showing 28 January 2015, as the date of death instead of 28 February 2015, and alleged that the policy was obtained fraudulently in the name of a deceased person.
However, both the district commission and the state consumer commission found that the insurer’s version was unsupported by credible evidence and based on a manipulated record. NCDRC fully endorsed these findings, noting that the insurer’s own investigator had presented contradictory dates of death, 4 June 2014, and 10 January 2015, but had not produced the original records to verify them. The state commission had clearly stated that the “...(opposite parties) OPs had tried to forge and fabricate the date of death by making undue addition by hand on the death certificate without any supporting evidence,” a conclusion NCDRC says was entirely justified.
Ms Kaur had produced the original death certificate issued by the competent authority, showing the date of death as 28 February 2015. The insurer, however, produced another version of the same certificate, where the date '28 January 2015' had been inserted by hand alongside the original entry. The handwritten alteration was neither attested nor supported by any record from the registrar of births and deaths. The commission found that the signature of the auxiliary nurse midwife (ANM) appearing on the document was inconsistent and that no official counter-signature existed.
The state commission had further noted that the investigator’s report, which attempted to suggest tampering, lacked authenticity as it was unsigned and unsealed. No corroborative documentary evidence was produced to prove that Mr Singh had died before the policy was issued. Witnesses, including the village panch, neighbours, and healthcare workers confirmed that Mr Singh had died on 28 February 2015. Even the attending physician, Dr Lakshman Singh, issued a written statement confirming that death occurred on the same date due to a heart attack.
The insurer also claimed that the death certificate had been prepared in connivance with the ANM worker, who was allegedly bribed with Rs20,000. NCDRC found this claim baseless, noting that there was no supporting evidence or official record to substantiate such allegations. It criticised the company’s investigator for failing to verify facts from the registrar’s office and for relying on conjectures and unsupported claims. The commission also pointed out that photographs produced by the insurer were blurred, unverifiable and could not be treated as evidence.
NCDRC endorsed the earlier observations of the district consumer commission at Ludhiana which had criticised the insurer for acting in bad faith. The district forum had remarked that insurance companies often show 'all types of green pastures' while selling policies but 'invent all sorts of excuses' to deny claims when payments are due. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dharmendra Goel vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd (2008), the forum had said that such conduct by insurers was not only legally untenable but also 'ethically indefensible'.
While the district commission had initially granted 70% of the claim on a non-standard basis, the state commission revised the award to the full insured amount and dismissed the insurer’s appeal. NCDRC has now upheld that order in full, rejecting PNB MetLife’s argument that the policy was fraudulently obtained.
Justice Sahi observed that the state commission had rightly concluded there was no credible evidence to show that the insured had died before the policy’s commencement. “The state commission has correctly arrived at the conclusion that the exercise undertaken by the investigator remained unsupported by any cogent evidence. The alleged correction in the death certificate was not proved through any official record,” the order stated.
The bench also says the order of the state commission was 'well written and almost perfect', and found no reason to interfere.
The ruling reaffirms the principle that insurers cannot manipulate official records or fabricate evidence to deny rightful claims. It also underscores that corrections to official documents such as death certificates must be made only by competent authorities with proper verification. Legal experts said the decision will strengthen consumer confidence and accountability within the insurance sector.
For Ms Kaur, who fought a nearly decade-long battle, the order finally brings justice. For India’s insurance industry, the judgement stands as a warning that unethical claim repudiations and attempts to tamper with official documents will not withstand judicial scrutiny.
(Revision Petition NoNC/RP/1257/2024 Date: 24 October 2025)
