SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, JJ.
Smt. Sulakshna – Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6731 of 2022
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Insurance – Group Insurance Policy – Repudiation of accidental death claim – Respondent No. 2 was authorised to accept premium for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 (Insurance Company) – Thereafter, it was for respondent No. 2 to recover amount of premium for and on behalf of insurance company and was required to remit the same to insurance company and policy was required to be issued by insurance company – Respondent No. 2 might have remitted premium with insurance company belatedly – However, for the same insured cannot be made to suffer – Under the circumstances, insured shall be entitled to amount insured under policies for which amount of premium was already paid prior to death of insured – Impugned judgment and order passed by National Commission is unsustainable – Impugned judgment and order passed by National Commission in Revision Petition quashed and set aside and order passed by District Forum confirmed by State Commission awarding sum insured with interest hereby restored. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
It was a group insurance. husband of original complainant died on 17.02.2007 in a road accident. However, it appears that respondent No. 1 – insurance company issued policies for the period from 09.03.2007 to 08.02.2008 on the ground that respondent No. 2 credited amount of premium on 09.03.2007. Therefore, respondent No. 1 – insurance company refused to pay the amount and refused to settle the claim. By the impugned judgment and order, National Commission has allowed revision petition preferred by respondent No. 1 herein and set aside the order(s) passed by the District Forum and State Commission, which has given rise to present appeal at the instance of the original complainant.
Findings of Court:
Appellant shall be entitled to claim amount under the policies along with the interest as ordered by the District Forum to be deposited within a period of eight weeks from today.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2016 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission) in Revision Petition No. 2675 of 2015, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
2. There was an agreement between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein regarding issuance of insurance cover. It was a group insurance. That a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited with respondent No. 2 towards premium on 31.12.2006. Respondent No. 2 issued a cover note on the very day i.e., 31.12.2006. The husband of original complainant died on 17.02.2007 in a road accident. However, it appears that respondent No. 1 – insurance company issued policies for the period from 09.03.2007 to 08.02.2008 on the ground that respondent No. 2 credited the amount of premium on 09.03.2007. Therefore, respondent No. 1 – insurance company refused to pay the amount and refused to settle the claim. Therefore, the complainant filed Complaint Case No. 132/10 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum). In the said complaint, a statement was made on behalf of the counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 – insurance company that they will settle the claim of complainant within time period of one month if the complainant submits required document to the company. Accordingly, the District Forum disposed of the said complaint vide order dated 14.10.2010. However, thereafter, the claim was not settled and therefore, the appellant herein – original complainant again approached the District Forum being Complaint No. 278. By order dated 13.01.2015, the District Forum allowed the said complaint and directed respondent No. 1 to pay the sum insured in the respective policies amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum allowing the complaint, respondent No. 1 – insurance company preferred the appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being First Appeal No. 169 of 2015. The State Commission dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 preferred revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By the impugned judgment and order, the National Commission has allowed the said revision petition preferred by respondent No. 1 herein and set aside the order(s) passed by the District Forum and State Commission, which has given rise to the present appeal at the instance of the original complainant.
3. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and having gone through the judgment and order(s) passed by the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission and the relevant material on record and the certificate dated 01.12.2005 issued by the Divisional Manager, it can be seen that respondent No. 2 herein was authorised to accept the premium for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 – insurance company. Thereafter, it was for respondent No. 2 to recover the amount of premium for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 – insurance company and was required to remit the same to respondent No. 1 – insurance company and the policy was required to be issued by the insurance company. It is the case on behalf of the complainant that the deceased husband paid the amount of premium of Rs. 4,000/- with respondent No. 2 on 31.12.2006 and therefore the insurance cover would commence from the completion of the fifteen (15) days of payment of premium. It may be true that respondent No. 2 might have remitted the premium with the insurance company belatedly. However, for the same insured cannot be made to suffer. Under the circumstances, the insured shall be entitled to the amount insured under the policies for which the amo
SupremeToday
Group Insurance Policy – Insured shall be entitled to amount insured under policies for which amount of premium was already paid prior to death of insured.
The key legal principle established was that the insurance cover could not commence without the acceptance of the application form by the insurance company, and the insurance company was liable to re....
Revisional jurisdiction - where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdict....
(1) Concurrent findings – In the present case there are concurrent findings of facts and thus revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited.(2) Revisional jurisdiction – In exercising of revi....
Repudiation of life insurance claim or ground of address and identity of insured and nominee, held not justified.
The court upheld that sufficient evidence established the identities necessary for the insurance claim, rendering the insurer's repudiation unjustified.
Petitioners failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.