SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 58 OF 2005
 
1. SEEMA N. SHAH (MRS. NIRMAL KUMAR R. SHAH)
W/O. LATE SH. NIRMAL KUMAR RADHEYSHYAM SHAH, R/O. B-5/34 KHIRA NAGAR, 3rd FLOOR, S V ROAD,
SANTACRUZ (WEST) MUMBAI - 400 054.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,
NEW DELHI
2. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE OF MUMBAI DIVISIONAL OFFICE-III, 'YOGAKSHEMA' 3RD JEEWAN BIMA MARG,
MUMBAI - 400 021.
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI DIVISIONAL OFFICE-III, NEW INDIA BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR, S V ROAD,
SANTACRUZ (WEST) MUMBAI - 400 054.
4. THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER
BRACH OFFICE NUMBER - 91C, THE LIFE INSUANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA MUMBAI DIVISIONAL OFFICE-III, NEW INDIA BUILDING,
FIRST FLOOR, S V ROAD,
SANTACRUZ (WEST) MUMBAI - 400 054.
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate
Assisted by Ila Haldia, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Kapil Sankhla, Advocate with
Mr. Vibhor Sharma, Advocate

Dated : 16 May 2016
ORDER

PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

            Ms. Seema N. Shah has filed the instant complaint against the Life Insurance Corporation of India and its functionaries alleging that her late husband Mr. Nirmal R. Shah an industrialist with the desire to obtain an insurance cover of Rs.50 Lakhs on his life deposited Rs.78,970/- with the opposite party insurance company on 23.4.2002 vide receipt No.5742. On 9.5.2002 late Shri Nirmal R. Shah produced himself for medical check-up under the supervision of the doctors of the opposite party No.1 and the panel of doctors found him to be fit and healthy. Shri Nirmal R. Shah again on 28.5.2002 produced himself for medical check-up by the opposite parties and his medical status was found to be normal and upto the mark as per the requirements. Thereafter, Shri Nirmal R. Shah was informed by the opposite party insurance company that his case for issue of insurance policy was being processed and he would soon be issued the insurance policy as well as the premium receipt. Thereafter, late Shri Nirmal R. Shah on many occasions contacted the concerned authorities of the opposite party No.1 regarding insurance policy and the premium details and he was always assured that as he had applied for a large insured amount,   his proposal was under process. It is alleged that on 14.9.2002 morning Shri Nirmal R. Shah died due to heart attack. The intimation in this regard was given to the concerned branch office of the opposite party No.1 and the complainant was assured that the insurance claim would be paid shortly to the nominee of the deceased Shri Nirmal R. Shah. When no payment was received for quite some time, the complainant being the widow and legal heir of Shri Nirmal R. Shah communicated with the concerned authorities. The claim, however, was finally repudiated vide letter dated 31st October, 2012 on the premise that as the requirements were not complied by the proposer, there was no acceptance of the proposal by the competent underwriting authority. Alongwith the repudiation letter the opposite party forwarded cheque of Rs.78,870/- dated 28th October, 2002 against the proposal deposit paid by late Shri Nirmal R. Shah after deducting Rs.100/- towards medical fee. Feeling aggrieved by the repudiation of the insurance claim, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in the National Commission on 28.6.2005.

2.         The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed a joint written statement wherein the opposite party justified the repudiation of the claim. The opposite party also raised preliminary objections as to the limitation in the written statement filed on 16.5.2006.

3.        

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top