Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 130
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sh. Naresh Katyal, J, Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member
Sunita W/o Sanjay – Appellant
Versus
The LIC Divisional Office, SCO No. 3-4-5, Sector-1, HUDA, Rohtak – Respondent
First Appeal No.414 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Sharma
The court affirmed that the insurer fulfilled its obligations under the policy, and the complainant's claims of non-payment were unfounded.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 - Appeal against dismissal of consumer complaint - Complainant alleged non-payment of survival benefit under insurance policy - Respondents contended payment was made and encashed - Appeal dismissed for lack of merit. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Consumer Rights - Complainant’s claim of mental agony and harassment due to non-payment rejected as payment was made. (Paras 2, 8)
Facts of the case:
Complainant purchased an insurance policy and claimed non-receipt of survival benefit of Rs.7,500/- for the year 2014, alleging fraud and mental distress.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the dismissal of the complaint, affirming that the payment had been made and there was no deficiency in service.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant was entitled to the survival benefit and if the insurer had acted in accordance with the policy terms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the insurer had fulfilled its obligations under the policy, and the complainant's claims were unfounded.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's affirmation of insurer's compliance with policy terms. (Para 1 , 8) |
| 2. claim of non-payment of survival benefit under insurance policy. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. defense raised by insurer regarding payment and service adequacy. (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 4. final dismissal of appeal due to lack of merit. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Unsuccessful complainant is in appeal. Challenge in this Appeal No.414 of 2019 has been invited to legality of order dated 29.03.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Sonepat (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.148 of 2018, vide which her complaint has been dismissed.
2. Factual matrix: Complainant purchased policy namely ‘LIC New Bima Gold’ bearing No.178556405 commencing from 28.01.2010 and date of its maturity is/was 28.01.2018. She was paying half yearly installment of Rs.1691/-. As per policy, “10% of sum assured under basic plan at the end of each 4th, 8th, 12th and 16th policy year” is/was payable to her. After completion of 4th year, she was surprised and shocked as she did not receive 10% money of assured sum i.e. Rs.7,500/-. She visited office of OP No.2 and submitted relevant documents, but of no use. OPs have cheated and played fraud with her and this wrongful act of OPs has caused her mental agony and harassment. She has filed complaint for issuance of direction to OPs to make payment of insured amount of Rs.7,500/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 2014; to pay her Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment, pain, mental agony, depression and economic loss; to pay Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service on part of OPs and to pay her Rs.5,500/- for litigation expenses.
3. OPs/insurer raised contest. In its defense; OPs/insurer has pleaded that policy No. 178556405 has been issued to complainant for sum assured Rs.50,000/- under T-T 179/12/12. Its date of commencement was 28.01.2010 and policy term is 12 years. As per policy terms and conditions; 15% amount of sum assured will be paid as survival benefit at the end of 4th and 8th year. OPs had issued cheque bearing No. 27869 dated 28.01.2014 of Rs.7500/- and it was got encashed on 12.04.2014, as per record. After receiving complaint from complainant; OPs wrote letter to ICICI Bank-Gohana regarding verification of encashment of said cheque. As per copy of cheque received from ICICI Bank-Gohana; said cheque No. 27869 of Rs.7,500/- was encashed in PNB-Purkhas (Ganaur). Official of OP has personally visited PNB- Purkhas on 10.05.2018, but dealing person refused to provide detail regarding encashment of cheque No.27869 in favour of Smt. Sunita/complainant. It is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on part of OPs and complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation.
4. Parties led evidence oral as well as documentary. On analyzing the same complaint has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.03.2019 passed learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat thereby giving rise to filing of this appeal by complainant.
5. In proceedings of this appeal, none has appeared on behalf of appellant/complainant and consequently, there has been no assistance from appellant side, so far as text of memorandum of this appeal is concerned. To the contrary, Mr. Karan Sharma-Advocate has represented respondents. Since, there has been no representation from appellant’s side therefore, this Commission proceeds ahead to dispose of this appeal by itself perusing the averments raised in memorandum of appeal. We have heard learned counsel for respondents at length. With his assistance record of learned District Consumer Commission has been perused.
6. It has been stated in memorandum of appeal, which is in the shape of registered letter addressed to Chairman, State Consumer Commission-Panchkula that she was entitled to Rs.7500/- initially in the year 2014 and second time in the year 2018 by virtue of her LIC policy, towards survival benefits. She got the amount which she was entitled
