IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Proper Authorization – Insurance Company also liable and hold that both OP-1 and OP-2 share equal responsibility for the deficiency in service and the unfair trade practice of illicitly collecting premium amounts from the complainants without proper authorization.
(2) Collecting Agents – LIC routinely issues due notices and warnings to policyholders when their policies are at risk of lapsing. OP-2 cannot absolve itself of liability by merely stating that the agent was appointed but not authorized, especially after collecting payments for a significant period of time.

ORDER

The Revision Petition (RP) 1835/2019 has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.05.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1108/2018 in which order dated 28.11.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint CC/83/2018 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of District Forum. FA/1108/2018 was filed by Respondent-1 herein (OP-1 before the District Forum). Similarly, RP/2622/2019 has been filed against order dated 24.09.2019 of the State Commission in FA/420/2019, in which order dated 26.11.2018 of District Forum in CC/220/2018 have been challenged. FA/420/2019 was also filed by Respondent-1 herein (OP-1 before the District Forum).

2. As the above stated RPs have been filed against the similar/related orders of the State Commission, parties involved are the same, and issues for consideration/determination are related, these are being taken up together under this order. For the sake of convenience, parties would also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.

RP No. 1835 of 2019

3. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent-1, the Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1) was Appellant and the Respondent-2 (hereinafter also referred to as OP-2) was Respondent-2 in the said FA/1108/2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was complainant and Respondents were OPs before the District Commission in the CC/83/2018.

4. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 16.09.2019. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 23.08.2023 (Complainant/Petitioner), 27.08.2023 (Respondent-1/OP-1) and 19.06.2023 (Respondent-2/OP-2) respectively.

5. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:

The petitioner’s husband had obtained a new money-back policy, Policy No. 387-755-312, from OP-1. This policy had an assured sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- for a period of 20 years, with a quarterly premium of Rs. 2,980 including GST, starting from 15.10.2014. The complainant’s husband consistently paid the premiums for the policy to OP-1. Following the demise of the complainant’s husband, she approached OP-1 as the nominated beneficiary to claim the assured sum of the insurance policy. However, OP-1 failed to facilitate the disbursement of the insurance amount, offering only false assurances of assistance. Consequently, the complainant initiated a claim petition seeking to obtain the due amount.

6. Vide Order dated 28.11.2018 in the CC/83/2018, the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed OP-1 to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation @6% p.a. and dismissed the complaint against OP-2.

7. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 28.11.2018 of District Forum, OP-1/Respondent-1 appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 08.05.2019 in FA/1108/2019 has dismissed the complaint and allowed the appeal of OP-1.

8. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 08.05.2019 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—

(i) The order passed by the State Commission is deemed illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts, materials, and evidence available on record. The State Commission allegedly failed to acknowledge that the Consumer Forum rightly awarded in favor of the complainant; the complainant suffered losses due to the OPs’ service deficiency, which was intentional and deliberate.

(ii) The State Commission failed to recognize that the complainant successfully proved the disputes regarding the claim before the District Forum. The State Commission overlooked the fact that