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
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
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 d....
Insurance policy cancellation requires valid notice to the insured; mere assertion of cancellation without proof is insufficient.
Acceptance of order – Complainant certainly cannot challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Order of the Insurance Ombudsman at least in a Consumer Forum, since such Order was passed by a statut....
(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.
(1) Insurance is contract and nothing shall be presumed which is written down in the contract.(2) Jurisdiction conferred on National Commission under Section 21 (b) of Act has been transgressed
“Claim for insurance coverage as given to deceased as a part of benefits for owning a debit card cannot be repudiated.”
The court affirmed that an insurer's repudiation based on non-disclosure of facts requires solid evidence, and concurrent findings of both forums must be respected unless a jurisdictional error is sh....
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.