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
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member and
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Royal Sundaram General Insurance
Company Limited (Formerly
Known As Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Limited) – Petitioner
versus
Latha and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.72 and 73 of 2023
Decided on 6.7.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Deepa Chacko, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Cancellation of Policy - Petitioner/Opposite Party also could not place on record any communication actually received by it from the said payment Agency, forwarding or indicating any request coming directly from the deceased Insured person seeking cancellation of the Policy.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Cancellation of Policy – Registered Communication - On facts, by the own case of the Petitioner, no Registered communication in writing was received from the Insured and actually cancellation was done allegedly on the request of the Insured made to “SBI Cards and Payments Services”, which was only the Platform through which the Premium for the Policy had been paid to the Insurer. Such Platform was neither the Agent of the Insured Person nor of the Insurer, for the purpose of seeking cancellation of the Policy which was an Insurance Contract directly between the Insured and the Insurer and the Platform/entity through which the Premium had been passed on, clearly had no further role in the matter. At any rate, the Petitioner/Opposite Party also could not place on record any communication actually received by it from the said payment Agency, forwarding or indicating any request coming directly from the deceased Insured person seeking cancellation of the Policy - The District Forum was therefore eminently justified in allowing the Insurance Claim – Therefore, Petition dismissed. [Paras 4 to 13].

Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member—The Revision Petition bearing Nos. 72 of 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party against the Respondent/ Complainant challenging the impugned Order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry, in First Appeal bearing No. 01 of 2017. Vide such order, the Ld. State Commission had allowed the Appeal while substantially upholding the Order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, in Consumer Complaint No. 69/2008, but had also awarded interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs which had been awarded to the Complainant as her Insurance Claim by the Ld. District Forum.

2. The Revision Petition bearing no. 73 of 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party against the Respondent/ Complainant challenging the impugned Order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry, in First Appeal bearing Nos. 16 of 2017. Vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal in default while upholding the aforesaid Order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pondicherry, in Consumer Complaint No. 69/2008.

3. Both these Revision Petitions are being decided by this common order.

4. The brief facts of both the cases are that the Complainant’s husband namely, Thiru K. T. Anbajagane, had taken a Personal Accident Insurance Policy under the scheme of Accident Shield Policy with the Opposite Party from 16.11.2006 to 15.11.2007 for an assured sum of Rs.10 Lacs, and had paid the premium amount of Rs.1,935/- under Policy bearing No. PAS BIG 0010 and certificate No. PS 00060432000100. However, the Complainant’s husband died after receiving fatal injuries in a road accident on 23.02.2007. Consequently, the Complainant intimated the Opposite Party and claimed death benefits of Rs.10 Lacs under the Policy. However, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 17.03.2007 intimated the Complainant that Complainant’s husband had requested the Opposite Party to cancel the said Insurance Policy and hence, the Opposite Party had refunded the premium amount of Rs.968/- with some deductions. It was the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had dishonestly stated in the letter about cancellation of the policy in order to defeat the claim. It was further stated that as per terms and conditions of the Policy, the Insurance Certificate could be cancelled by the insured person on 14 days’ notice in writing sent under registered post acknowledgment due and this clause was given a go-by for the convenience of the Opposite Party. It was further stated that no Notice of Cancellation of the Policy had been given by Complainant’s husband. The Complainant also issued a Legal Notice dated 12.08.2007 to the Opposite Party claiming the death benefits, but the Opposite Party failed to discharge its obligations. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party in failing to pay the claim amount to the Complainant and causing mental agony seeking directions upon the Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% from 24.02.2007 till its realization, Rs.1,00,000/- for indulging in unfair trade practice, and Rs.25,000/- as compensation and litigation costs.

5. The Opposite Party appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended that the Complainant’s husband had taken the Policy through M/s SBI cards after receiving a Proposal from them since the Insured was holding an SBI Credit Card. The deceased Insured had requested the SBI Cards and Payment Services to cancel the said policy on 19.01.2007. Consequently, the Policy was cancelled by the Opposite Party and the premium amount of Rs.968/- was refunded on a pro-rata ba

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