Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called œthe opposite parties?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.250 dated 9.9.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lacs alongwith interest @ 9% from 14.3.2010 till its realization, pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant(hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that OP No. 2 approached the wife of the complainant for the purchase of Life Insurance Policy and it was represented that in case insured deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for three years continuously then she will be insured for an amount of Rs. 3 lacs for a period of 10 years and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. The appellants/OPs No.1 and 2, Life Insurance Corporation of India, has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Jaswinder Kaur, was accepted and the OPs No.1 and 2 were directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.1/2% per annum from 26.7.2010 till the date of actual realization, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and costs to the complainant. 2. Dayal Chand, deceased, was the husband of the complainant who obtained life insurance policy No.131958585 from the OPs on 28.1.2004 after fulfilling the necessary formalities and he kept on paying the premiums regularly. He died on 7.4.2009 and the complainant laid her claim on the basis of the insurance policy on the ground that she was the legal heir of the deceased. The complainant averred in her complaint that at the time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, appellants (In short the appellants) have filed this appeal against the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short the District Forum). 2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Mangal Singh, respondent no.1/complainant (hereinafter called as the respondent no.1) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), narrating that he was posted at Kassowal in the BSF as Constable and his number was 66210408. He got the life insurance policy through his department from the appellants for a sum of Rs.2000/- vide policy no.S23123746 dated 20.02.1970 and respondent no.2 after getting insured the respondent no.1 from the appellants, got the policy issued dated 20.02.1970. The wife of the respondent no.1 was nominated as nominee. The policy was to mature on 20.02.1985. 3. The respondent no.1 sent complaint to the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, appellant (In short the appellant) has filed this appeal against the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the District Forum). 2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as the respondent) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) against the appellant, narrating that she is widow of Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Nachhattar Singh. Sh. Sukhdev Singh, since deceased, during his lifetime obtained insurance policy, insuring his life with accidental benefits, from the appellant vide policy no.162818811 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and during his lifetime, he paid the premium upto date. At the time of obtaining the policy, the life assured Sh. Sukhdev Singh was examined by the doctors of the appellant and after thorough medical examination, the proposal was ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. The appellants/opposite parties (LIC) have preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was allowed and the LIC was directed to settle their insurance claim in terms of the policy and to pay the same to them, within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. It was also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainants. 2. As per the averments made in the complaint, Avtar Singh, husband of complainant No.1 and father of the other complainants, got insurance cover of Rs.5,00,000/- from LIC against the payment of annual premium of Rs.30,192/-. The first premium was paid on 31.10.2006 and the policy known as New Bima Gold was issued. Complainant No.1 was nominated by the insured as his nominee to receive the insura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This order shall disposed of two (2) appeals i.e. First Appeal No.1412 of 2009 (Niranjan Dass Goel Vs Rajwinder Kaur and Ors.) and First Appeal No.1446 of 2009 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. Vs Rajwinder Kaur and Ors.) as both the appeals are directed against the same order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the District Forum). The facts are taken from First Appeal No.1412 of 2009 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal. 2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Rajwinder Kaur and Anr., respondents no.1 and 2/complainants (hereinafter called as respondents no.1 and 2) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) against the appellant/opposite party no.3 (hereinafter called the appellant) and respondents no.3 and 4/opposite parties no.1 and 2 (hereinafter called respondents no.3 and 4), on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member 1. This order shall disposed of two appeals i.e. First Appeal No.748 of 2008 (Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited {BHEL} Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.) and First Appeal No.768 of 2008 (Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Sudesh Rani and Anr.), as both the appeals are directed against the same order 03.06.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short the District Forum). The facts are taken from First Appeal No.748 of 2008 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal. 2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Sudesh Rani, respondent no.2/complainant (hereinafter called as the respondent no.2) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) against the appellant and respondent no.1, asserting that Sh. Balwinder Kumar S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar was serving with the appellant and he obtained two insurance policies no.130084120 and 130085648 from resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, appellant (In short the appellant) has filed this appeal against the order dated 22.04.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the District Forum). 2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Virsa Singh and another, respondents/complainants (hereinafter called as the respondents) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), alleging that respondent no.1 is the father of Sarwan Singh, who had taken the LIC policy from OP-3 (not made party in the appeal) vide policy No.300276140 and paid all the installments of the policy upto date. The policy contained two benefits in case of death of the insured in the accident. Respondent no.2 is the mother of the deceased insured Sarwan Singh. Sh. Sarwan Singh was unmarried and respondents no.1 and 2 are his only legal heirs. 3. On 21.05.2006, said Sarwan Singh met with an accident while driv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, appellants (In short the appellants) have filed this appeal against the order dated 07.11.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the District Forum). 2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Karamjit Kaur respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as the respondent) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) against the appellants, pleading that her husband late Sh. Gurcharan Singh purchased an insurance policy no.163236210 from appellant no.1 and the respondent was nominee. The said Gurcharan Singh was enjoying good health during his lifetime and the appellants issued the policy after proper verification and their satisfaction. The premium was paid without any delay. During the duration of the policy, Sh. Gurcharan Singh, insured met with an accident on 15.12.2006 and he was admitted in Amrit Nursing Home, Man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Smt. Balwinder Kaur, appellant/complainant (In short the appellant) has filed this appeal against the order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short the District Forum). 2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called as the respondents), making the averments that her son namely Narinjan Singh was insured with the respondents vide policy No.471192571 dated 28.11.2002 and he was depositing the premiums regularly with the respondents till 29.11.2005. He was insured for a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs. The son of the appellant died on 01.12.2005 due to the injuries suffered in an accident. Prior to his death, he was hale and hearty. He did not take any medical treatment from any doctor or hospital, nor remained admitted anywhere. The respondents w...
Tag this Judgment!