Back
M. B. Desai
RP-21-07
Page 1 of 8
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.
Revision Petition No. 2021/07
[Virtual Hearing]
Court No. 1
1. Aditya Birla Sun Life Ins. Co. Ltd.
(Formerly Birla Sunlife Ins. Co. Ltd.)
1st Floor, 112, B-Block, Radhey Arcade,
Opp. City Pulse Cinema, Koba Highway,
Kudasan, Gandhinagar-382 421.
2. Aditya Birla Sun Life Ins. Co. Ltd.
(Formerly Birla Sunlife Ins. Co. Ltd.)
16th Floor, One India Bulls Center Tower-1,
Jupitar Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400 013.
…Petitioner
Vs
Kanchanbhai Raijibhai Parmar
Bhatpura, Po. Poicha, Ta. Savli,
Vadodara-391 770.
....Respondent
Mr. M. K. Dudhiya, Ld Advocate for the petitioners.
Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President
Order by Justice Mr. V. P. Patel, President
1. The petitioner have preferred present Revision Petition under
section 47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the interim order dated
23.3.2021 passed in Complaint No. 182/2016 by the
Gandhinagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(for short District Commission).
2. Heard ld. advocate Mr. M. K. Dudhiya, for the petitioners.
Though notice to the opponent is duly served, he has not chosen
to appear before this Commission.
Details
DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 11
08 2021
Date of filing
08 04
2021 Duration
M. B. Desai
RP-21-07
Page 2 of 8
2.1 The present petitioners are original opponents, respondent is
the original complainant in this revision petition. Hereinafter the
petitioners and respondent will be referred as per their original
status.
3. Argument of the petitioner: Ld. advocate has argued that
the Learned District Commission has failed to exercise a
jurisdiction though vested to it and passed order contrary to the
settled by law. That the Learned District Commission has not
given opportunity of principle of natural justice to lead the
evidence. That the Learned District Commission has not given
chance to heard the advocate of the petitioner. That the Learned
District Commission has not considered the documentary
evidence produced on record as regards to the death certified of
the deceased. That the Learned District Commission has ignored
the statutory right of the petitioner. That the Learned District
Commission has not considered the facts of the deceased for
whom the claim was made was died before the date of the policy
application. He requested to allow the petition and directed the
Learned District Commission to give permission to issue
summon as required in the application for the witness summon.
4. Merits of the case: The petitioner insurance company has
filed an application dated 17.9.20 wherein, it is stated as under:
“1. That the complainant has prcferred present complaint
challenging decision for repudiation of the claim by opponent
under the policy obtained by his brother. That the opponent
had repudiated the claim mainly on the ground of "Mr.
Bachubhai Raijibliai Parmar (the life assured) had died prior to
the date of policy Application: hence, there is no contract
established and the same to be treated as null and void."
2. That the opponents have with their written statement in
support of their reason for repudiation, annexed the certificate
dated 24/02/2015 issued by Sarpanch of Bhatpura Juth Gram
P'anchayat, where in it was stated that "Parmar Bachubhai
Raajibhai had died on 10/09/2012 and the certificate is
M. B. Desai
RP-21-07
Page 3 of 8
issued after verification." That, the complainant has with his
rejoinder in affidavit, produced 2 certificates issued by
Sarpanch of the Bhatpura Juth Gram panchayat dated
01/03/2013 and dated 05/07/2017. It is submitted that the
certificate dated 01/03/2013 was issued by then Sarpanch
Ms. Chauhan Sumitraben Tirathbhai and certificate dated
05/07/2017 was issued by Mr. Parmar Amarsinh Ishvarbhai,
In th
