V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—We are not impressed with the contention raised by Shri S. K. Paul, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that merely because the Insurer had totally repudiated his liability in respect of the claim, no proceedings could be validly initiated under the Consumer Protection Act by the insured. This contention squarely falls within the ruling given by this commission in "Umedilal Agarwal v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd." (O. P. No. 3 and 4 of 1989 decided on 28.7.89) I (1991) CPJ 3 (NC). In that decision this Commission has observed that it is not possible to hold that the settlement of a disputed insurance claim will not be covered by the expression "service" occurring in Section 2(d) of the Act. It was laid down that whenever there is default or negligence in regard to service that will constitute "deficiency in service" on the part of the insurer and it is perfectly open to the aggrieved party for seeking appropriate relief under the Act.

2. The next point urged by the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that under the terms of the policy the insurer is not liable to honour the claim in the present case, since according to hi