STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 262 of 2025 Date of Institution : 08.09.2025 Date of Decision : 19.03.2026 Vanita Sharma daughter of Mohinder Singh aged about 48 years, r/o H. No. 7058, Sunny Enclave, Kharar District S.A.S. Nagar Mohali ….Appellant/Complainant Versus

1] Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Deep Building, Sector

17-B. Chandigarh through its Senior Branch Manager

2] Life Insurance Corporation of India, SCO 46-47, Phase-2, S.A.S Nagar Mohali through its Branch Manager ….Respondents/Opposite Parties BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant alongwith Mrs. Vanita Sharma, appellant in person Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the respondents PER MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the complainant (appellant herein) for setting aside order dated 01.08.2025 vide which her consumer complaint bearing No.174 of 2024 has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘District Commission’).

2] In nutshell, the case of the complainant before the District Commission was that in June 2020, on the assurances of the opposite parties, the complainant’s daughter Ms. Tunisha Sharma [now Deceased Life Assured (in short ‘DLA’)] purchased LIC New Jeevan Anand Policy No.145716662, commencing from 28.05.2020 and maturing on 28.05.2036, for a sum assured of ₹5,00,000/-, with the complainant as nominee, alongwith ADDB rider of ₹5,00,000/- and the premiums were regularly paid. However, the DLA unfortunately died on 25.12.2022 whereafter the complainant submitted all requisite documents and sought release of the sum assured but the Opposite Parties, instead of paying the full claim, refunded only ₹70,600/- on 10.08.2023 after deducting ₹4,29,400/-, stating that the DLA had committed suicide within one year of revival of the policy on 02.10.2022 and therefore, only 80% of the premiums or surrender value was payable. It was alleged that since the policy commenced on 28.05.2020 and the death occurred after more than two years, the Opposite Parties wrongly applied the suicide clause on the basis of revival, thereby illegally withholding the remaining amount and despite approaching the Insurance Ombudsman and sending a legal notice dated 16.10.2023, no relief was granted, which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

3] On the other hand, while contesting the consumer complaint, the opposite parties pleaded in their reply before the District Commission that the claim was calculated strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy considering that the DLA had committed suicide. It was admitted that the subject policy was issued on receipt of quarterly premium of ₹8,950/-, however, it was denied that the premiums were regularly paid on time, as the premium due on 28.05.2022 was paid on 10.07.2022 and the premium due on 28.08.2022 was paid on 02.10.2022, i.e. beyond the grace period of 30 days. It was further pleaded that due notices regarding premium dues and lapse were duly sent to the DLA through SMS and the policy had lapsed twice on 28.06.2022 and 28.09.2022 and therefore, the opposite parties rightly settled the claim by refunding ₹70,600/- in terms of the policy conditions.

4] The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases before the District Commission.

5] The District Commission after going through the material available on record dismissed the consumer complaint as stated above.

6] In appeal, the appellant/complainant has assailed the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the District Commission on the ground that the same has been passed in a mechanical manner by wrongly relying upon Annexure R-1, which is a blank policy document neither issued to the complainant nor connected with the present d