STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE OF INSURANCE MAHARASHTRA STATE – Appellant
Versus
ANUSYA SURENDRA BAHGAT – Respondent
SC/CB2/27/A/140/2022
##PAGE1##
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/140/2022
DIRECTORATE OF INSURANCE MAHARASHTRA STATE
PRESENT ADDRESS - HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT BLOCK NO.
264,1ST FLOOR , GRIHANIRMAN BHAVAN MAHADA ,KALA NAGAR , BANDRA EAST MUMBAI
400051 MAHARASHTRA,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
ANUSYA SURENDRA BAHGAT
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O JANATOLAA, POST GHOTI , TAHSIL GOREGAON DIST GONDIA
441801 MAHARASHTRA,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
LEARNED ADVOCATE SHRI.LIMAYE FOR THE APPELLANT AND
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
LEARNED ADVOCATE SHRI.KSHIRSAGAR OF THE RESPONDENT
DATED: 31/12/2025
ORDER
PER MS.SHAILA WANDHARE, HON’BLE MEMBER
1. The appellant namely Directorate of Insurance Maharashtra State has
preferred the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019
challenging the order passed on 17/02/2022 in Consumer Complaint
No.CC/96/2021 (hereinafter it is referred to in short as “impugned order”) of the
learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gondia (hereinafter it is
referred to in short as “learned District Commission”) by which the complaint filed by
Respondent/Complainant being complainant came to be partly allowed.
2. The parties of the appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original
nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better
##PAGE2##appreciation.
3. The facts that emerge from the original complaint are that the deceased
Yogesh Kumar Surendra Bhagat was working as a land surveyor in the office of the
Deputy Superintendent of Land Records (DySLR), Gondia and was a member of the
State Government Employees Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme under
which the Opposite Party (O.P.) had taken a group accident insurance policy of
Rs.10,00,000/- for its employees, the deceased being unmarried and his mother
complainant being the beneficiary. On 13/09/2019, the deceased was murdered by
unknown persons in his village. The complainant submitted the insurance claim
through the office of the DySLR, Gondia along with all requisite documents which
were duly verified and forwarded. Despite, repeated applications and compliance
with all requirements, the O.P. rejected the claim on 04/03/2021 solely on the
ground that the deceased was allegedly under the influence of alcohol as per a
chemical analysis report. Such rejection was arbitrary, amounted to deficiency in
service and defeated the very object of the government group personal accident
insurance scheme meant for the benefit of the legal heirs of deceased employees.
The complainant alleging it deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part
of O.P. Due to the unjust repudiation the complainant suffered mental agony and
financial hardship, compelling her to file the present complaint seeking payment of
the insured amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum, compensation
of Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical suffering, and litigation expenses of
Rs.20,000/-.
4. The Opposite Parties (O.P.) resisted the claim before the learned District
Commission and denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant.
They contended that the complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice is false, baseless, misconceived and not maintainable in law. It was
submitted that the complainant failed to appear in person before the Commission
and has suppressed material facts and concealed the true and correct
circumstances relating to the death of the deceased with an ulterior and mala fide
motive. The O.P. further contended that the complainant has not disclosed any
specific or sustainable grounds under the Act and has failed to place on record any
##PAGE3##cogent documentary evidence to establish deficiency in service on the part of the
O.P. It was specifically submitted that the allegation of accidental death is wholly
unsupported, as the available records and report
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.