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

S. M. KANTIKAR, DINESH SINGH
Narinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Nemo
For the Respondents:Mr. Sandeep Datta, Advocate

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 15.07.2016 of the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the ‘State Commission’) arising from the Order dated 12.04.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan (in short the ‘District Forum) in C.C. No.81 of 2015.

2. No one appeared for the petitioner (the ‘complainant’).

We heard the learned counsel for the respondent (the ‘insurance co.’).

We also perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts are that the complainant’s son, the deceased insured, had taken “Jeevan Anand” policy with profits and with accident benefit. The risk covered was Rs.4,70,000/- (Rs.2,35,000/- on account of sum assured and Rs.2,35,000/- on account of accident benefit). On 08.06.2014 the insured died due to accidental drowning in river. The insurance co. paid only Rs. 2,35,000/- against the sum assured but it repudiated the accident benefit claim on ground that the deceased insured was under the influence of alcohol (drunk) at the time of the accident which was a violation of condition no. 10(b)(i) of th

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top