Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition is against the order dated 27.12.2005 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 113 of 2000. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereafter, the LIC) against the order dated 29.09.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad (in short, the District Forum) in complaint case no. 1797 of 1993. 2(i)Complainant no. 2 before the District Forum was the nominee in the life insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- (with accident benefit) taken by her husband (Rasiklal Maganlal Panchal) with effect from 07.10.1989. The premium for the policy was to be paid half yearly. The premium due on 15.05.1991 was not paid even within the grace period of one month, which expired on 04.06.1991. The life assured died on 25.07.1991. The overdue premium was, however, paid with interest on 11.10.1991 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 341/2007 “ LIC of India Vs. Mr. Gyaninder by which, while dismissing appeal with cost of Rs.5,000/-, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that insured Gyaninder, brother of the Complainant/respondent obtained insurance policy on 28.5.2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- with double accidental benefits from OP/petitioner disclosing income of Rs.60,000/- p.a. from agriculture. Later on, Gyaninder obtained another policy of Rs. 10,00,000/- with double accidental benefits. Gyaninder died on 10.8.2003 in a road accident. Complainant lodged claim with the OP which was repudiated on the ground that assured had given wrong information regarding his annual income. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 341/2007 “ LIC of India Vs. Mr. Gyaninder by which, while dismissing appeal with cost of Rs.5,000/-, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that insured Gyaninder, brother of the Complainant/respondent obtained insurance policy on 28.5.2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- with double accidental benefits from OP/petitioner disclosing income of Rs.60,000/- p.a. from agriculture. Later on, Gyaninder obtained another policy of Rs. 10,00,000/- with double accidental benefits. Gyaninder died on 10.8.2003 in a road accident. Complainant lodged claim with the OP which was repudiated on the ground that assured had given wrong information regarding his annual income. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member: 1. The present petition has been filed by Jeevan Bima Nagar Flat Owners Welfare Association. The members of the above said Welfare Association were the policy holders of the L.I.C. during October, 1993. The L.I.C., the opposite party in this case advertised in newspapers for the sale of single, double and three bedrooms residential flats construction in an area of 12.5 acres at Jeevan Bima Nagar Anna Nagar Western Extension, Madras. The salient features of the advertisement were these: œ(i) 800 Flats (single, double and three bedrooms) with price ranging from 3.3 to 6.6 lakh. (ii) The flats are located in 12.5 acres of land with well laid out roads and other amenities. (iii) Provision being made for locating a community centre, Public Telephone, with S.T.D. facilities, milk booth, clinic-cum-pharmacy and other similar basic facilities within easy reach all within the complex. (iv) Constructions supervised by a team of highly experienced and qualified...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member 1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 29.08.2012, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. A/11/442, œLife Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC) versus Smt. ArchnaDayanand Vakade?, vide which while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 31.03.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sholapur was upheld. 2. After preliminary hearing, a notice was sent to the respondent for appearance before this Commission. However, the respondent sent a written reply which is on record and requested that she being an illiterate lady and facing financial crisis and starvation, was unable to appear before this Commission. The petition was ordered to be admitted on 07.10.2013 and again notice was sent to the respondent for final hearing, but she did not appear despi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
R.C. Jain, Presiding Member: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. A-07/742, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (opposite party in the complaint) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act). The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the LIC of India against the order dated 21.8.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Delhi, by which order the said District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the LIC to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 to the complainant, being the widow of the insured and nominee, besides a compensation of Rs. 25,000 including the cost of proceedings. 2. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. However, the basic fact which we may note for deciding this petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
S.K. NAIK, MEMBER 1. Aggrieved upon the reversal of the order dated 16.02.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bargarh (For short the District Forum) in his favour directing the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay Rs.1,30,000/- in terms of the policy obtained by him along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim with a cost of Rs.1000/-, by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (State Commission for short) in First Appeal No. 216 of 2006, thereby dismissing his complaint; the complainant has filed this revision petition to invoke our jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner/complainant had taken two life insurance policies, one for Rs.80,000/- and the other for Rs.50,000/- on 15th of January, 2001 and 15th of January, 2002 respectively from the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. Howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER The National Insurance Co.Ltd. (Petitioner herein) has filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No.1002/2003 wherein Theegala Laxmi and others were Respondents. In her complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/complainant had contended that her late husband (hereinafter referred to as the insuree) during his life time had joined the Chakra Deposit Scheme of the Petitioner/Insurance Company and had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- as well as 4 installments under the said Scheme. As per the conditions of the above Scheme, if the deposit holder (insuree) dies an accidental death, Petitioner/Insurance Company would be liable to pay accidental benefit of Rs.1 lakh. The insuree died on 04.06.1996 in an encounter which was an accidental death. Respondent, therefore, approached Petitioner/Insurance Company to pay her the amount of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Respondent Paras Ram Sethi is the original complainant. He took a life insurance policy from the petitioners on yearly premium of Rs.1342.50. The policy was effective from 01.07.1980. During the currency of the policy, the respondent took a loan of Rs.4150/- on 06.02.1986 against the security of this policy. In spite of having received the letter from the petitioners for payment of premium prior to the due date and also demand of loan amount or the interest due thereon, the respondent did not make the payments. In view of this, when the insurance policy was matured and became due for payment on 01.07.2002, the petitioners deducted the principal amount of Rs.4150/- along with the interest amount of Rs.13,439/- from the maturity amount of Rs.61,300/- under the policy. The respondent filed the present complaint before the District Forum for the refund of excess amount of interest, which was not permissible under the law. According to the respondent, under the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. For the reasons stated in the applications for condonation of delay, the delay in filing these revision petitions is condoned. 2. This order shall decide three cases which are between the same parties and pertain to three different insurance policies. The facts of the cases are these. The deceased, Lal Chand obtained three insurance policies bearing No. 173750059 dated 28.9.2003, No. 173509711 dated 28.1.2004 and No. 173509877 dated 15.7.2004 for Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, respectively. Shri Lal Chand paid the initial premiums of all the policies. 3. The deduction of the premium amount was being made from the salary of Shri Lal Chand and the same was sent to the LIC every month upto the month of September, 2005. In the month of September, 2005, Shri Lal Chand met with an accident and succumbed to his injuries on 20.1.2006. However, the deduction of the premium from the salary of the deceased from October, 2005 to January, 2006 ...
Tag this Judgment!