IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:28.10.2014 Date of Hearing:12.01.2024 Date of Decision: 13.03.2024 FIRST APPEAL NO.-1015/2014 IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE- 1, JEEWAN BHARTI BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, CANNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI.

(Through: Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. MRS. ABHA BANSAL, W/O LATE ARUN KUMAR BANSAL, R/O 1829/137, 2^ND FLOOR, SHANTI NAGAR, TRI NAGAR, DELHI.

(Through: Mr. Vikas Negi, Advocate)

2. M/S KARVAT GROUP OF COMPANIES, THROUGH ITS MD/DIRECTORS, UGF 9A & B, ARUNACHAL BUILDING, 19, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001.

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, counsel for the Appellant.

None for the respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the present case as per the District Commission record are:

“… the complainant had a mediclaim policy from OP for the year 2009-10. After expiry of the period he handed over a cheque bearing No.847785 dt. 17.6.2010 for Rs.5929/- drawn on Canara Bank, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, to the OP-2 for renewal of premium for the period 2010-2011 along with user charges vide separate cheque of Rs.3033/-. The dispute between the parties arose when he again approached for renewal after a year for 2011-2012. At that time he was informed that policy has lapsed because the cheque of Rs.5929/- for renewal had been not cleared for some procedural banking reasons. Till such time no information was received by complainant and he first time came to know of this fact. The other cheque of user charges was encashed.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 04.04.2014, whereby it held as under:

“At the stage of arguments, counsel for OP Md.Furkan, appeared and orally argued. But there is no evidence regarding information sent to complainant at the time when the cheque was not honoured. In these facts, clearly deficiency established on the behalf of OP-1 in not getting a fresh cheque by communicating with the complainant immediately and, also for not informing him of possible lapse of policy, if cheque was not paid. The OP cannot take advantage of its own wrong. So, holding OP guilty of deficiency, we direct OP to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant and re-instate the lapsed policy with continuity and we also award Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.”

3. The Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order of the District Commission dated 04.04.2014 on the grounds that the District Commission failed to appreciate that there was no contract of insurance in existence on the date of loss between the Appellant (insurer) and the Respondent no. 1 (insured). Further, the counsel for the Appellant submits that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the Respondent no.1 herself mentioned the wrong account number on said cheque, due to which the cheque for premium amount could not be cleared. Lastly, the Appellant submitted that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that the directions given in the impugned order dated 04.04.2014 is itself void in nature as it is not possible for Appellant to renew the policy with retrospective effect as the insurance can be done from back date in any circumstances. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the counsel appeared on behalf of the Appellant for setting aside the impugned order dated

04.04.2014 passed by the District Commission.

4. Notice of the present appeal was issued upon the Respondents. The Respondent no. 1 vide order dated 03.12.2015, submitted that he does not wish to file the reply to the present Appeal. Further, in regard to the notice upon the Respondent no. 2, the counsel for the Appellant vide order dated 10.05.2018 submitted that the Respondent no. 2 is a proforma party in the present Appeal and there is no need to iss