##PAGE1##

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 27.10.2025 Pronounced on: 07.04.2026

REVISION PETITION NO 1416 of 2023 (Against the order dated 14.02.2023 passed in FA No 252/2016

by the State Commission Gujarat)

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited

4th Floor, Inspire -BKC, Block Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex

Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051

Having Branch At:

2nd Floor, Sankalp, Old Road Baroda- 390015

...Petitioner V

Hinaben Rajendra Kumar Raja W/o Rajendra Kumar R. Raja

Residing at B-6, Madhav Group, Old Padra Road, Vadodara

...Respondent

HON’BLE DR.INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER

For the Petitioner Mr. Shubham Bharambe, Advocate (VC)

For the Respondent None

Dated: 07th April, 2026

ORDER

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

Revision Petition No. 1416 of 2023 Page 1

1. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the respondent/the complainant/

Mrs. Hinaben Rajendra Kumar Raja (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”

is the wife and nominee of Late Rajendrakumar R. Raja who was a small-scale businessman and sole breadwinner of the family. The petitioner/opposite party/Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of life insurance. Late Rajendrakumar R. Raja procured a life insurance policy from the petitioner on 23.03.2010 by paying a premium of Rs. 20,000, and paid the premiums regularly up to January 2012. Late Rajendrakumar R. Raja subsequently was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor in the food pipe and was operated upon by Cancer Specialist Dr. Surgeon Rajiv Bhatt, after which he experienced temporary relief, however, the cancer later metastasized to vital organs, and he died on 11.02.2013, during the course of which the family incurred medical expenses amounting to Rs. 6,50,000. After his death, the respondent submitted a claim under the said policy, which the insurance company repudiated on the ground that the deceased life assured, was suffering from a pre-existing disease. The respondent being aggrieved by the repudiation filed the present consumer complaint bearing no 576/2013 titled as Mrs. Hinaben Rajendra Kumar Rajaunder V. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act” before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as ”the District Forum”) and claimed compensation of Rs. 6,50,000

along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

2. The petitioner right to file reply before the District Forum was closed after sufficient time was granted to file a reply.

3. The District Forum vide order dated 28.02.2015 allowed the complaint. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under verbatim:

Revision Petition No. 1416 of 2023 Page 2

6. In the instant case, we presume that the Company has created the reason for repudiation which is not genuine.

7. To summarize the case, the opponent Insurance Company has created bogus reason for repudiation and as such, shown deficiency

in service and adopted unfair trade practice.

8. Facts, circumstances of the case, evidence on record, arguments and cited judgments, we pass following order: -

ORDER

The Complaint is partly allowed. The opponent is ordered that they shall pay sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs) minus Rs. 52,787/- (Rupees fifty-two thousand seven hundred eighty-seven only) = Rs.3,47,213/- (Rupees three lacs forty-seven thousand two hundred thirteen only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the Date: 20/03/2010 till realization. The opponent shall pay sum of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only)

towards mental agony

4. The petitioner being aggrieved from order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the District Forum filed First Appeal bearing no FA/252/2016 titles as Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mrs. Hinaben Rajendra Kumar Raja