2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2818
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KRISHNA DEV SAH S/o. Ram Chandra Sah – Appellant
Versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA – Respondent
NC/RP/722/2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Reserved on: 29.08.2025 Pronounced on: 12.09.2025 REVISION PETITION NO 722 of 2025 (Against the order dated 17.10.23 passed in FA No 07/2020 by the State Commission Bihar, Patna)
Krishna Dev Sah S/o Ram Chandra Sah R/o Ganesh Chawk Arya Samaj Road, Ward No. 18 P.S Samastipur Town District Samastipur ...Petitioner t' V
1. The Branch Manager Life Insurance Corp, of India Chandna Petrol Pump P.O + P.S+ District- Samastipur
2. The Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corp. Dikshikha Road Vishwanath Road, Begusarai P.S + District Begusarai ...Respondents HON’BLE DR.INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr. Moti Chandra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Rajesh Mahindru and Mr. Ashish Singh, Advocates Dated: 12th September, 2025
ORDER
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, JHGFEDCBA
1. B riefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the K ajal K um ari, w ife of the petitioner/the com plainant/K rishna D ev Sah (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) had procured four life insurance policies from the respondents VHGFEDCBA w herein the petitioner w as nom inated as the nom inee and policy bonds w ere duly issued. T he details of policies are i) N ew M oney B ack Plan dated 11.10.2014 w ith assured sum of R s.5,00,000/- carrying an annual prem ium of R s. 37,491/- w ith m aturity date of 11.10.2034; ii) Jivan Sagun dated dated 13.10.2014 w ith assured sum of R s. 4,60,980/- for w hich a single prem ium of R s. 46,098/- w as paid w ith m aturity date of 13.10.2016; iii) Jivan R akshak dated 14.10.2014 w ith assured sum of R s. 75,000/- for a term of 20 years w ith an annual prem ium am ount of R s. 2,659/- iv) Jivan Sagun policy dated 25.11.2014 w ith assured sum of R s. 3,84,150/- for a period of 12 years carrying a prem ium of R s. 38,415/- w ith a m aturity date of 25.11.2026. T he w ife of the petitioner K ajal K um ari (hereinafter referred to as “the policy holder”) w as engaged in the business of cosm etic item s and w as supporting her fam ily and paying the insurance prem ium s out of her earning. T he policy holder suddenly fallen ill on 25.01.2015 at 10:15am and w as adm itted in Seva Polly C linic, Sam astipur for treatm ent and died due to cardiac arrest on 26.01.2015 at 8.10 pm . T he policy holder left behind the petitioner and three children. T he policy holder had paid the prem ium and died during validity of insurance policies. T he petitioner inform ed the death of the policy holder to the respondents and subm itted insurance claim s on 22.12.2015 and 03.06.2016 for paym ent of the assured am ounts. T he respondents despite com pleting the necessary form alities did not pay the claim ed am ount. T he petitioner served legal notices dated 24.01.2017 and 14.02.2017 upon the respondents. T he petitioner being aggrieved filed consum er com plaint bearing no 49/2017 titled as Krishna Dev Shah V The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & another before the D istrict C onsum er Forum , Sam astipur (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") w herein sought paym ent of the assured sum total am ounting R s. 14,20,130/- along w ith interest, R s.
50,000/-com pensation m ental agony and R s. 25,000/ as costs of litigation.
2. T he respondents/the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as HG“tFhEeDCBA yHGFEDCBA respondents”) filed w ritten statem ent before the D istrict Forum w herein stated that the com plaint is barred by lim itation and is not m aintainable under law . T he D eath L ife A ssured i.e. the policy holder procured policy bearing no 529908645 on 11.10.2014 w ith assured sum of R s.5,00,000/-. T he policy holder subsequently procured policies bearing no 59908778 and 529908966 and another policy bearing no 529911758 on 25.11.2014. T he total assured sum w as R s. 14.20 lakhs. T he respondents after receipt of the death claim and its careful exam ination found that the policy hold