SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Savita Devi and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
I.D.B.I. Federal Life Insurance
Company Limited and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1386 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 08/03/2016 in Appeal No. 101/2015 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 10.4.2019

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Gurmail Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ex-parte

IMPORTANT POINT
If there is no concluded contract, the insured is not entitled for the claim.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b)—Insurance-insured died in accident—Since, allegedly the documents for processing the claim were not received, only first amount was refunded. Hence, complaint—District Forum dismissed the complaint. State Commission also dismissed the appeal. Hence, revision.

Held, the contract of insurance was not complete in this case. The proposal was pending for acceptance. The complainant did not submit proof of income at proposal stage. There was no concluded contract.

Result: Revision dismissed.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed by Savita Devi & anr. against the order dated 08.03.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.101 of 2015.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the son of the petitioners Sh. Deepak Kumar Gautam as well as their daughter-in-law namely Smt. Cheema Devi were contacted by an agent of the respondent Insurance Company and both of them in order to get themselves insured, agreeing to take IDBI Federal Term Insurance Protection Plan executed proposal form and other relevant papers. On 07.01.2011, the proposal form of Smt. Cheema Devi bearing No.107024497 was filed up and handed over to the concerned agent on the same day and along with the said form a cheque bearing No.009243 dated 07.01.2011 amounting to Rs.4,360/- was also issued out of the account of Mr. Deepak Kumar Gautam i.e. husband of Cheema Devi on account of the premium to be paid for the policy. On 12.01.2011, the said cheque was enchased by the respondent. The respondent also issued an acknowledgement/receipt on 12.01.2011 itself confirming the amount of premium as well as the other relevant details qua the policy of Smt. Cheema Devi. On 27.01.2011, unfortunately, son and daughter in law of the petitioners died in an accident near Kurukshtera. On 08.03.2011, the claim qua the son of the petitioners was released by the Insurance Company but the claim of daughter- in -law namely, Smt. Cheema Devi was not released. Surprisingly, to the shock of the petitioners, they received an envelope, which contained a cheque amount to Rs.4360/- along with a written letter stating therein that “We have not received the documents requested by us to facilitate the processing of your proposal within stipulated time, but we have been constrained to refund your application, further it was mentioned that as a consequence of that we have processed a refund of initial premium paid by you”.

3. Consequently, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint being No.34/12. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal, (in short ‘the District Forum’) vide order dated 11.12.2014 dismissed the complaint.

4. The petitioners/complainants then preferred an appeal before the State Commission, however, the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the State Commission.

5. Hence the present revision.

6. The notice was issued to the respondents/opposite parties. However, inspite of service of notice, respondents did not appear, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order 31.05.2018 of this Commission. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners was heard.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners mentioned the facts as narrated above. The learned counsel stated that as per Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Insurance Company has to assume the risk from the date of receipt of premium. The cheque of the premium was encashed on 12.01.2011 and receipt was also issued by the respondent. Accordingly, the risk would be deemed to be assumed from 12.01.2011. The wife of the son of the petitioners died in the accident on 27.01.2011 during the currency of the assumption of risk by the Insurance Company. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the insurance claim.

8. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the material on record. In the present matter, both the fora below have given concurrent finding and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:—

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top