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) 39670

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPNY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
GEETA RANI WIDOW OF LATE SH SUSHIL KUMAR – Respondent
SC/4/A/389/2024



Petitioner Advocates:ANKUR GUPTA ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

1

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

U.T., CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 389 of 2024

Date of Institution : 04.12.2024

Date of Decision : 31.12.2025

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., ICICI Lombard House,

414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai

- 400025

Present Address: 4th Floor, “The Statement”, Plot No.149, Industrial Area

Phase-1, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh UT – 160002 through its

authorized signatory

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1] Geeta Rani widow of late Sh. Sushil Kumar, resident of H.No.1020 A,

Preet Colony, Lohgarh, Zirakpur District Mohali, Punjab 140603

…Respondent/Complainant

2] Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. through its Branch Manager SCO No.

337-338, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh

2] Federal Bank through its Branch Manager, Hitpriya Square, Patiala

Road, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar Mohali

….Proforma Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Ankur Gupta, Advocate for the appellant (on video conferencing)

Sh. Kapil Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1

None for respondent No.2

Service of respondent No.3 dispensed with vide order dated 12.12.2024

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

The instant appeal has been filed by opposite party No.2 – ICICI

Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (appellant herein) for setting

##PAGE2##

2

aside order dated 03.07.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as

‘District Commission’) vide which, Consumer Complaint bearing No.673 of

2022 filed by the complainant – Geeta Rani (respondent No.1 herein) has

been partly allowed against the appellant (opposite party No.2) by granting

following relief:-

“11. For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint

deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly

allowed. OP No.2-Company is directed to clear the loan account

of the complainant and her husband by crediting the sum

assured of Rs.19,64,889/- maintained with OP No.1 on the date

of death of the LA i.e. 06.12.2021 and to pay the remaining

amount to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from

07.12.2023 till the date of its actual realization to the

complainant.”

However, the consumer complaint was dismissed against opposite parties

No.1 & 3 (respondents No.2 & 3 herein).

2] In brief, the case of the complainant before the District

Commission was that she and her husband, Sh. Sushil Kumar, availed a housing

loan of ₹20.80 lakhs to purchase a built-up house bearing No.1020-A, Preet

Colony, Lohgarh, Zirakpur, District Mohali (Pb.). The loan was secured by an

insurance policy taken in the name of Sh. Sushil Kumar by paying a premium of

₹80,000/-, which was included in the disbursed loan amount. The complainant

was the nominee under the said policy. Opposite party No.1 assured that in case of

any mishap to the insured, the borrower or his legal heir would not be liable to pay

the outstanding loan amount and Opposite party No.2 would be responsible to

clear the balance loan. On 06.12.2021, Sh. Sushil Kumar suffered severe chest

pain, fell from a chair and was declared to have suffered a heart attack. He was

taken to Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi, where he was declared brought dead.

Thereafter, his son took him to Mehar Hospital, Singpura, Zirakpur, where he was

again declared brought dead. No post-mortem was conducted due to family

reasons. Opposite party No.1 was informed of the death on 27.12.2021 and a claim

was lodged with Opposite party No.2. However, Opposite party No.2 vide letter

dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure C-8) repudiated the claim on the ground that it did

##PAGE3##

3

not fall within the coverage of major medical illnesses under the policy. It was

alleged that Opposite party No.2 illegally and arbitrarily rejected the genuine claim.

Accordingly, the complainant filed complaint before the District Commission

seeking directions to Opposite party No.1 not to deduct monthly loan installments

and t

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