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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1615

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
AMARJEET KAUR W/o. LATE SOHAN SINGH – Respondent
SC/3/FA/394/2025



Petitioner Advocates:ARUN KUMAR & VARUN BHARDWAJ ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No. 394 of 2025

Date of institution : 06.05.2025

Reserved on : 16.02.2026

Date of Decision : 03.03.2026

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,

Registered Office at SCO No. 57-58-59, Sector 17-A, Madhya Marg,

4th Floor, Chandigarh

…Appellant/Opposite Party No.3

Versus

1. Amarjeet Kaur, Aged 44 years wife of Late Sohan Singh son of

Gurdeep Singh, Resident of Bhangchari, Tehsil & District Sri Muktsar

Sahib (Mobile No. 98550-76200)

…Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company

Limited, Railway Road, Near Rajindra Hospital, Sri Muktsar Sahib

3. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company

Limited, SCO No. 72, Second Floor, Phase-9, Mohali

4. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab (Bhagat

Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojna Scheme), Punjab Health System

Corporation, Government of Punjab, Punjab School Education Board

Building, Block-E, Phase 8, Sahibjada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali)

PINCODE 160062

…Respondents No.1,2&4/OP Nos.1,2 & 4

First Appeal under Section 41 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the

order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

Sri Muktsar Sahib in C.C. No. 8 of 2022.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President

Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member

Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

##PAGE2##

First Appeal No. 394 of 2025 2

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 : Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate

For the respondents : None

VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Reliance General

Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed the present Appeal through its Manager to

challenge the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib (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 the Complainant’s family was beneficiary under the Bhagat Puran

Singh Sehat Sewa Bima Yojna, launched by Govt. of Punjab. Under the

said Scheme, Smart Card No. 0304 4000 3520 3538 4 was issued by the

OPs, whereby Group Personal Accident and Disability Cover to the tune of

Rs.5,00,000/- had been provided. The husband of the Complainant-Sohan

Singh alongwith his son Gurpreet Singh while working of Fodder (Turi) in

the Agriculture Field of one Avtar Singh had received burn injuries due to

sparking fire in the said Agricultural Fields. Sohan Lal and his son had

suffered burn injuries in the said incident and had been shifted to Sri Guru

##PAGE3##

First Appeal No. 394 of 2025 3

Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot in a critical condition. Sohan Singh

had died lateron due to said incident and his Post Mortem was conducted

at GGS Hospital, Faridkot. FIR No. 0016 dated 03.05.2016 was also

registered regarding the incident. Insurance claim had been lodged by the

LRs of the Insured with the OPs as per the guidelines in accordance of the

Rules & Regulations of the scheme. Thereafter, legal notice dated

24.12.2021 was also served upon the OPs but of no use.

4. Stating the act of the opposite parties 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 the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- to the

Complainant, benefits provided under BPSSBY Scheme. Interest,

Compensation and litigation expenses had also been prayed for on

account of suffering from harassment, inconvenience and forced to avail

the legal remedy.

5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the App

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