STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/19/1156 MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK PRESENT ADDRESS - KHANDWA ROAD, KHARGONE, KHARGONE.,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus KISHORE PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O VILL. KHAKNAR, DIST. BURHANPUR, KHAKNAR,MADHYA PRADESH.

BAJAJ ALLIANCE LIC PRESENT ADDRESS - WEST HUB, II FLOOR, BAJAJ FINE SURVEY, 208/1, B SECTOR, BEHIND FIELD BUILDING, VIMAN NAGAR, NAGPUR ROAD, PUNE. ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK FOR THE RESPONDENT:

KISHORE DATED: 16/10/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 2019 (Arising out of order dated 17.05.2019 passed in C.C.No.66/2018 by District Commission, Burhanpur)

MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KHANDWA ROAD, KHARGONE (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. KISHORE S/O LATE RAMESH, R/O VILLAGE-KHAKNAR, DISTRICT-BURHANPUR (M.P.)

2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH REPRESENTATIVE, MANAGER, WEST HUB, SECOND FLOOR, BAJAJ FINE SURVEY, 208/1, B-SECTOR, BEHIND FIELD BUILDING, VIMAN NAGR, NAGAR ROAD, PUNE (M.S.) .. RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

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

Shri Ruchir Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Mona Paliwal, learned for the respondent no.1.

Ms. Sangeeta Moharir, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

O R D E R

(Passed On 16.10.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

This is an appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant-bank against the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Burhanpur (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C. No. 66/2018 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.

2. In short, facts of the case are that the complainant's father Late Ramesh Patil during his life time through opposite party no.1-bank had obtained Group Master Sarv Shakti Suraksha insurance policy from the opposite party no.2- insurance company in the year 2013 and under the said policy sum insured of Rs.4,00,000/- was payable. It is further submitted that on 24.02.2016, insured Ramesh Patil died of which intimation was given to the opposite party no.2- insurance company through opposite party no.1-bank. It is submitted that on claim being made, the insurance company instead of paying sum insured paid the amount of premiums. It is alleged that at the time of supply of policy, policy conditions were not supplied. It is alleged by the complainant that in order to escape from the liability of making payment of sum insured, the insurance company paid the amount of premiums which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission.

3. The opposite party no.1-bank by filing reply to the complaint before the District Commission submitted that the complainant is not sole legal heir of the deceased-insured. The complainant's mother is also alive. Deceased-insured Ramesh Patil was entitled to get benefit only deposition of five installment of Rs.4,800/- from the date of taking policy i.e.

14.01.2013 and since the installments were not deposited, the policy became lapsed and therefore, the complainant-nominee of deceased-insured is not entitled to get any relief. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4. The opposite party no.2-insurance company failed to file reply within prescribed time limit therefore the reply of the opposite party no.2-insurance company was not taken on record and the reply filed by them was not considered.

5. The District Commission allowed the complaint against the opposite party no.1-bank and directed the bank to pay sum insured of Rs.4,00,000/- after deducting R