Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... beyond the grace period. additionally, section 64-vb does not apply to the appellant. in this context section 43 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (in short the act) has relevance. reference is also made to condition 2 of the policy. 5. in reply learned counsel for the claimant submitted that it is not condition 2 of the policy which is applicable, but condition no. 3 which is applicable. it is stated that no adverse inference can be drawn because the insured had not signed the cheque and ..... 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 ..... any event the amount was received within the grace period and therefore, the claim could not have been repudiated. accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. the national forum dismissed the revision holding that section 64-vb of the insurance act, 1938 (in short the insurance act) was applicable where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post and the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be. therefore, it was held that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 28 days is condoned. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 130 of 2008 “ Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Yog Raj Chauhan and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that OP No.1/Respondent No. 3 was agent of OP No.2/Petitioner. OP No. 1 visited Complainant No. 1 and apprised terms and conditions of investment in LIC. On15.6.2006, OP No. 1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- for investment in Future Plus Scheme and again on 13.7.2007, OP No. 1 was given Rs.3,00,000/- for investment in Market Plus Scheme of LIC. OP invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in favour of his two daughters and obtained two policies....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Rekha Gupta, Member 1. Revision Petition no. 1742 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner who was the opposite party no.1 against respondent no.1 who was the complainant and respondent no. 2 who was the opposite party no. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case as gleaned from the record of the file are as follows: 3. The complainant/ respondent no. 1 took one Group Personal Accident Policy from United India Insurance Co. Ltd., with premium of Rs.1,700/- on 22.09.2003 at N T R Health University, Vijayawada. The policy period was 4 years equivalent to MBBS course. In case of accidental death of earning parent the petitioner “ Insurance Company had to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent no. 1 apart from the tuition and boarding fees paid to the college by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The mother of the respondent no. 1 P Lakshmi Devi died due to heart attack suddenly on 27.11.2004, while she was talking to one Mr Dr M Sheshadri Reddy, Proddatur. The said doctor informed that resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member 1. This common order shall decide above detailed six revision petitions. We have taken the facts from revision petition No. 1617 of 2014 titled as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Guntur through Asst. P.F. Commissioner-Legal, Delhi vs. S. Siva Sankar Rao. 2. The State Commission had decided 50 cases through one common order. Before us, revision petitions were filed against 38 appeals. However, out of 38 revisions, 28 revision petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Now, 13 revision petitions are pending before us. 3. Out of these revision petitions, we have issued notices in Revision Petitions No. 1588, 1644, 1795, 1781, 1782 and1783 of 2014. 4. There is a delay of 61 days in filing the revision petitions No. 1617, 1618, 1619, 1620 of 2014. Also, there is a delay of 62 days in filing revision petition No. 1645 of 2014. There is a delay of 78 days in revision petition No. 1796 of 2014. In each revision petition, an application for condonation of delay ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 08.08.2012, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 1062/2010, œRajabeti versus Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC),? vide which the order dated 11.03.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muraina (M.P.), dismissing the consumer complaint in question, was confirmed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner/complainant Raja Beti, Mahendra Singh got insurance policy from the LIC under Jeevan Anmol Yojana Scheme for sum assured of Rs.5 lakh through an agent and paid Rs.2238/- as premium on 28.06.2005 as first-six monthly instalment. Before issuing the policy, the LIC got conducted medical examination of the insured Mahendra Singh through their panel Doctor and then is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.02.2008 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 1428/2007, œThe Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC) versus Nagaraj T.V.? vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 06.06.2007 in consumer complaint no. 22/2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya, allowing the said complaint, was set aside, and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant obtained Jeevan Dhara Policy, bearing no. 623015283 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the LIC, with date of maturity as 19.10.2006. The complainant contended that he was entitled to Rs.4,800/- as monthly instalment of annuity from the date of maturity, whereas the OP was paying h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member 1. One of the benefits of Democracy is that, one Government Department can sue another Government Department. Non-payment of court fee, attracts so many litigants to try their luck, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Can this Commission, arrogate to itself, those powers, which it does not enjoy? A commission of summary jurisdiction cannot make the position explicit to the half-backed case, in absence of solid and unflappable evidence. 2. This common judgment shall decide 36 original complaints, detailed above. These complaints are between the same parties. The questions of facts and law are similar. The amounts of the gold and jewellery differ. We will decide the Case No. 224 of 2010, connected with 35 other similar matters. 3. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (ECGC, in short), the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as OP), was established by Government of India to strengthen the export promotion drive by covering the risk of exportin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member This revision is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana ( in short, the State Commission) dated 30.11.2012 in FA No. 1047/2012 whereby the State Commission Haryana allowed the appeal against the order of the District Forum Sonepat and dismissed the complaint. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that husband of the petitioner obtained life insurance policy of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party on 28.04.2004. Rajinder Singh, husband of the petitioner died on 07.11.2004. The insurance claim was filed in February 2010 on the plea that it could not be filed earlier because the petitioner had no knowledge of the insurance policy. The opposite party repudiated the claim. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the petitioner filed the consumer complaint. 3. The respondent opposite party in his written statement justified the repudiation of claim on three counts, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member 1. Petitioners/Opposite Parties have filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act., 1986 (for short, Act) challenging the order dated 30.12.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (for short, State Commission) in F.A. No. 375 of 2013. 2. Respondent/Complainant had filed a consumer complaint against the petitioners before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuttack (for short, District Forum) on the ground that deficiency in service had been committed by the petitioners, while asking for payment of differential premium amount at the time of payment of maturity value under Postal Life Insurance Policy (PLI) which was taken by the respondent. This amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioners. 3. The consumer complaint was contested by the petitioners stating that the maturity value as admissible was paid to the insured and there has not been any violation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member: 1. Revision Petition No. 2770 of 2008 has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.3.2008 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (the State Commission) in appeal No. 2308 of 2007. 2. The facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that the husband of the respondent had obtained a policy of insurance bearing Policy No. 622663818, date of issue of the said policy was 10.3.2005 for a sum of Rs. 50,000. 3. The late husband of the respondent/complainant had obtained the afore said policy of insurance through the agent of the petitioner bearing agents code No. 7669626 and the said policy of insurance bond was issued through petitioner No. 1 by the petitioner No. 2. After obtaining of policy of insurance, the late husband of the respondent had paid three instalments of the premium of a sum of Rs. 1,673 each half yearly. 4. The late husband of the respondent died...
Tag this Judgment!