SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 35147

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SBI GIC Insurance Company Limited & Another – Appellant
Versus
Amarjeet Kaur and Others – Respondent
SC/3/A/28/2023



Petitioner Advocates:Inderjit Singh ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 12.01.2023 Reserved on : 03.02.2025 Date of Decision : 14.02.2025 SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Accident and Health Claims, 3rd & 4th Floor, Lotus IT Park, Road No. 16, Plot No. B-18/19, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) 400604 through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Jitendra Dhabhai posted/available at 46, IIIrd Floor, Karol Bagh, Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 129, New Delhi -

110005 ….Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus

1. Amarjeet Kaur aged about 46 years W/o Late Kamaljit Singh S/o Joginder Singh, R/o Village Mahla Kalan, Tehsil Bagha Purana, Moga, Punjab, Aadhaar No. 2641-9793-03214, Mobile No. 98140-

60320 .…Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, VPO Mudki, District Ferozepur, Punjab

3. Gupta Hospital, Mudki Road, Bagha Purana, District Moga through Dr. Hitesh Gupta .…Respondent Nos.2&3/OPs No.1&3 First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga in C.C. No. 14 of 2021.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Ms. Meenakshi Bali, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Ashish Grover, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None For respondent No.3 : Sh. Manpreet Kanda, Advocate VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 i.e. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed the present Appeal through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Jitendra Dhabhai to challenge the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant-Amarjeet Kaur had been partly allowed. 2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent No.1/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that Kamaljit Singh was having Saving Bank A/c No. 38300808244 in OP No.1-State Bank of India. Said Kamaljit Singh, the husband of the Complainant along with family members was insured under Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy No.175092-0000-00/38300808244 issued by OP No.2-SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the SBI Bank Account Holders only. Said policy was valid w.e.f. 27.05.2019 to 26.05.2020. During the subsistence of the policy, on 06.07.2019 Kamaljit Singh while driving his motor cycle, had struck with stray animal on the road, outer phirni of Village Mahla Kalan, District Moga. Due to said accident, he had suffered internal injuries and was admitted in Gupta Hospital, Bagha Purana, Moga. He remained admitted from 06.07.2019 to 08.07.2019 (uptil the date of his death). Thereafter, the wife of the DLA approached the State Bank of India and she came to know that the DLA- Kamaljit Singh was insured under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy of OP No.2 and she had been mentioned as nominee in the said policy. She lodged the insurance claim with the OP No.2, being an accidental death of the DLA. OP No.2 instead of paying the amount, had repudiated her insurance claim vide letter dated 13.02.2020.

4. Stating the act of the opposite party No.2 to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the OPs be directed to pay insurance amount of Rs. 20 lakhs with interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of suffering from mental agony and harassment.

5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 had filed its written statem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top