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

SUBHASH CHANDRA
Nirmala Devi – Appellant
Versus
Reliance Life Insurance Com – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Hirandra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Advocate

ORDER

This Consumer Complaint under section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) alleges deficiency in service in denying a claim under the life insurance policy issued by the Opposite Party in respect of the deceased son of the Complainant, who is the mother and nominee of the Policy Holder.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Deceased Life Assured (DLA), Vijay Kumar S/o. Mr. Babulal Verma, held a Life Insurance Policy No. 52392026 dated 14.10.2015 issued by the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The benefit payable was Rs.1,00,00,000/- or 10 times the annualised premium or 105% of the premium paid as on date of death excluding extra premium, if any, in case of death. The Policy was issued after a medical fitness examination conducted by the Opposite Party. The DLA who was an employee of the Oriental Bank of Commerce met with a road accident on 27.10.2015, while driving a two wheeler, when he was found lying injured on the road in an unconscious state due to head injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital and was provided first aid at Government Hospital, Karnal followed by admission to Arvinda Hospital, Karnal and subsequently,

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