The court upheld that sufficient evidence established the identities necessary for the insurance claim, rendering the insurer's repudiation unjustified.

1. This Revision Petition has been filed under S.58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the 'Act 2019') (corresponding S.21(b) of The Consume Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act 1986')), in challenge to the Order dated 6.2.2020 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (the 'State Commission') in F.A. No. 775 of 2015, arising out of the Order dated 17.7.2014 in C.C. No. 555 of 2013 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Additional), Ahmedabad (the 'District Forum').
The Petitioner, IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd., was the Opposite Party before the District Forum (the 'Insurance Co.').
The Respondent, Ms. Ankitaben Manojbhai Neta, was the Complainant before the District Forum (the 'Complainant').

2. Heard arguments on admission from learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. on 6.1.2021.
Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 17.7.2014 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 6.2.2020 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3. The Petition has been filed with reported delay of 172 days.
In the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the revisionist Insurance Co., to settle the matter on merit, the delay is condoned.

4. The case relates to repudiation of an insurance claim on the death of the insured.
The death of the insured occurred in 2011. The dispute went before the District Forum in 2013. We are now in 2021.

5. The District Forum, vide its Order dated 17.7.2014, allowed the Complaint. Its Order was passed on contest, after the affording of opportunity to the Insurance Co., after the appraising of the evidence.
The Insurance Co. was ordered to pay the assured sum of Rs.8 lakh to the Complainant, the nominee daughter of the insured, with interest of 9% per annum from 30.3.2012, i.e. from the date of repudiation of the claim. The Insurance Co. was also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.10 thousand and cost of litigation of Rs.5 thousand.

6. The Insurance Co. preferred Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission concurred with the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal (Para 14: " - - - - it is clear that, claim has been falsely rejected and it is a negligence in service by the respondent. So, we are of the view that, judgment delivered by the learned Forum is just and proper and no any interference is required in that order. So, appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected - - - - " (as per the translated version of the Order furnished by the Insurance Co. with its Petition)). And the State Commission confirmed the Award made by the District Forum.

7. The ground taken by the Insurance Co. in its repudiation letter of 30.3.2012 was that "during investigation of the claim, the identity and address" of the deceased insured and the nominee (his daughter) "had not been proved up to our satisfaction".
The State Commission has passed a speaking Order. While dealing comprehensively and holistically with the various grounds taken in the appeal, it has inter alia explicitly dealt with the specific ground of repudiation taken by the Insurance Co. in its repudiation letter dated 30.3.2012 (Para 11: Birth date of insured - Manojbhai is 4.7.1961, he was serving with the police department as Head Constable, his school leaving certificate and documents relating his service with the Police Department has been produced. Complainant is a daughter of insured and her school leaving certificate, etc. documents also have been produced. Insured - Manojbhai was performing his duty as a Head Constable with the Police Department and his annual salary was Rs.1,80,000. Insured - Manojbhai and complainant / nominee - Ankita have been fully identified, despite that, Insurance Company has assigned false and vague reply and rejected claim so as to ru