IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 31.10.2022 Date of hearing: 17.12.2024 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.-203/2022 IN THE MATTER OF MRS. MAYA SINGH W/O LATE SHRI PRATAP SINGH R/O A-8/274, GALI NO. 8, AMAR COLONY, EAST GOKALPURI, DELHI-110094.

(Through: Mr. Ram N. Sharma, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.

ROMAN HOUSE, HT PAREKH MARG, 169, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI-4000020.

(Through: Mr. Anubhuti Singh, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE J. P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: Mr. Ram N Sharma, counsel for Appellant (through VC), Enrollment No.: D-354/98 Mr. Anubhuti Singh, counsel for the Respondent (through VC)

PER : HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

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

“The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant's husband taken two policies bearing Nos. 11054606 and 11268668 by Opposite Party's Office for a sum Insured of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- in the year 2007. The Complainant's husband paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- against Policy No. 11054606 and Rs. 25,000/- against Policy No. 11268668 and Opposite Party's office issued two different Receipts on 08.05.2007 and 12.10.2007 covering the risk on the life of Shri Pratap Singh and a duly completed proposal form was also obtained by Opposite Party's office. Complainant's husband had paid the due premium of the policies till 2013 when the Lt. husband of Complainant expired due to some illness. It is further stated that the death claim was reported to Opposite Party on 30.11.2013 by the Complainant by way of a letter whereby Opposite party was requested to settle and pay the death claim as per policies. The Complainant sent number of requests to Opposite Party's office and also visited their office number of times and Complainant was assured that payment of policies will be released in the Complainant name being the nominee but the claim was not settled and not paid till today. A legal notice was served upon the Opposite Party on 12.03.2022 but no response has been received till date. The Complainant has prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to pay to the Complainant in settlement of the claim a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- being the amount of claim along with interest thereon @ 24% two months after the date of loss, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, pain and suffering and another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-being the cost of the present litigation.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 27.09.2022, whereby it held as under:

“2. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant on the point of Admission and we have also perused the file. Lt. husband of the Complainant took the policy from the Opposite Party bearing Policy No. 11054606 and 11268668 in the year 2007 sum insured of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000 with a Policy Premium of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively. As per the first premium receipt enclosed with the complaint, Lt. husband of the Complainant paid first premium amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 08.05.2007 against Policy no. 11054606 and Rs. 25,000/-

against Policy no. 11268668 on 12.10.2007.

3. Counsel of the Complainant was given five opportunities on their request to submit the copy of the policies and receipts of premium paid but they have failed to produce any document.

4. In view of above, since policies were taken in the year 2007 and paid only one premium against each policy that was in year 2007. The Complainant also filed after nine years from the death of the husband of the Complainant.

5. Hence, we did not see any ground to admit the complaint. The complaint is dismissed.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commissi