STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/14/2125 SHIV SHANKAR TRIPATHI PRESENT ADDRESS - S,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus M/S IFFCO TOKIO GIC PRESENT ADDRESS - S,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

SHIV SHANKAR TRIPATHI FOR THE RESPONDENT:

M/S IFFCO TOKIO GIC DATED: 15/10/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 2125 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 14.10.2014 passed in C.C.No.177/2014 by District Commission, Satna)

SHIVSHANKAR TRIPATHI, S/O SHRI YAGYAMITRA TRIPATHI, R/O GALI NO.03 DHAWARI, POLICE STATION-KOTWALI, TEHSIL-RAGHURAJNAGAR, DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. M/S IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

C.S.C. E-4/18, SECOND FLOOR, ARERA COLONY SHOPPING COMPLEX, NEAR B.S.N.L OFFICE, BITTAN MARKET, BHOPAL-462 016

2. M/S IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

FIRST FLOOR, CHOURASIA COMPLEX, NEAR SAFARI HOTEL, OPPOSITE BUS STAND, REWA ROAD, SATNA THROUGH MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Umeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

O R D E R

(Passed On 15.10.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated

14.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C. No. 177/2014 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2. In short, facts of the case are that the complainant's son Nikhil Kumar Tripathi during his life time had obtained an insurance policy (personal home suvidha policy) no.54164298 for the period w.e.f. 14.06.2013 to 13.06.2014 for sum Insured of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party-Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited (for short insurance company). It is submitted by the complainant that on 19.01.2014 fell down in courtyard and sustained injuries. He was immediately taken to Dr. A. K. Agrawal, who advised medicines. His son after taking medicines and light dinner slept at 11.00 pm and on 20.01.2014 at 4.00 am it came to the family's knowledge that he died. It is further submitted that on 10.03.2014 during cleaning of the house, the subject policy was found in his almirah of which intimation was given to the insurance company. It is alleged by the complainant that on claim being filed with the insurance company same was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that insurance company was not informed promptly and the death of the complainant's son (deceased-insured) was not due to accident. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties approached the District Commission seeking relief.

3. The opposite parties/respondents in their reply before the District Commission denied the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the deceased-insured was not died on account of accident as also the insurance company was informed about delay of two months.

On claim being received, investigation was carried out by the insurance company in which it was found that in the claim form, the cause of death was shown as head injury whereas in the prescription of Dr. A. K. Agrawal there is no mention of serious/severe injury or head injury. Post mortem of the deceased-insured was also not conducted. Since death on account of accident was not proved therefore, the insurance company repudiated the claim as 'No Claim'. There has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the insurance company. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argue