STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 287 of 2025 Date of Institution : 13.10.2025 Date of Decision : 06.01.2026

1] Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Reliance Centre, 401-B to 404, 4th Floor, Inspire BKC, G-Block, BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051

2] Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 123, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh – 160017, both through their authorized signatory/Manager Legal Mr. Animesh Mishra, Chief Manager Legal, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, available at Unit No.401-B, 402, 403 & 404, 4^th Floor, Inspire BKC, G-Block, BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051 ……Appellants/Opposite Parties V e r s u s

1] Aruna Sachdeva W/o Mr. Harshana Domun, R/o H.No.245, Sector

37-A, Chandigarh

2] Ira Domun D/o Mr. Harshana Domun, R/o H.No.1208 A, Sector 32, GMCH Doctors’ Flats, Chandigarh …..Respondents/Complainants BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj alongwith Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocates for the appellants Ms. Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate, respondent No.1 in person as well as on behalf of respondent No.2 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the opposite parties –

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Private Limited (appellants herein) seeking setting aside of dated 01.07.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the complainants (respondents herein) bearing No.5 of

2025 has been partly allowed by granting following relief:-

“4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the consumer complaint succeeds and the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

(i) to refund the entire premium amounts i.e.

Rs.9,29,669/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its deposit onwards.

(ii) to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

(iii) to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii)

above.”

2. It was the case of the complainants (respondents herein) before the District Commission that on 20.03.2021, the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2, namely Sh. Harshanan Domun (policy holder/proposer), took policy No.53715352 from the opposite parties by paying a premium of ₹1,59,900/- and thereafter paid two more premiums till March 2024, depositing a total sum of ₹3,18,000/-. Similarly, on 20.03.2021, he obtained policy No.53912661 by paying a premium of ₹2,09,000/- and thereafter paid three premiums till March 2024, depositing a total amount of ₹6,27,000/-. Unfortunately, the policy holder expired on 26.04.2024, leaving behind the complainants as his legal heirs. Thereafter, complainant No.1 approached the opposite parties for settlement of the death claim and was informed that as per the policy, she was entitled only to the surrender value of ₹1,60,000/- on submission of requisite documents. No official could explain the antecedents of the plans taken and the policy documents were written in micro handwriting, deliberately concealing important information. It was stated that in Para 13 of the policy details, under family history, the agent had wrongly ticked “No” to the query regarding parents suffering from heart attack or diabetes, whereas the mother of the complainant had an autoimmune disease. It was further stated that the common proposal form showed that the opposite parties, through their agent, filled incorrect information regarding the source of funds and the m