Sulakshna vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another

Smt. Sulakshna ...Appellant(s) Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 04.02.2016 passed by the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New

Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission)

in Revision Petition No. 2675 of 2015, the original

complainant has preferred the present appeal.

2. There was an agreement between respondent No. 1 and

respondent No. 2 herein regarding issuance of insurance

cover. It was a group insurance. That a sum of Rs. 4,000/­

was deposited with respondent No. 2 towards premium on Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SNEHA 31.12.2006. Respondent No. 2 issued a cover note on the Date: 2022.09.23 16:26:00 IST Reason:

very day i.e., 31.12.2006. The husband of original

1 complainant died on 17.02.2007 in a road accident.

However, it appears that respondent No. 1 – insurance

company issued policies for the period from 09.03.2007 to

08.02.2008 on the ground that respondent No. 2 credited

the amount of premium on 09.03.2007. Therefore,

respondent No. 1 – insurance company refused to pay the

amount and refused to settle the claim. Therefore, the

complainant filed Complaint Case No. 132/10 before the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak

(hereinafter referred to as the District Forum). In the said

complaint, a statement was made on behalf of the counsel

appearing for respondent No. 1 – insurance company that

they will settle the claim of complainant within time period

of one month if the complainant submits required

document to the company. Accordingly, the District Forum

disposed of the said complaint vide order dated

14.10.2010. However, thereafter, the claim was not settled

and therefore, the appellant herein – original complainant

again approached the District Forum being Complaint No.

278. By order dated 13.01.2015, the District Forum

allowed the said complaint and directed respondent No. 1

2 to pay the sum insured in the respective policies

amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/­ and Rs. 2,00,000/­ along

with interest @ 9% per annum.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by

the District Forum allowing the complaint, respondent No.

1 – insurance company preferred the appeal before the

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being

First Appeal No. 169 of 2015. The State Commission

dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, respondent No. 1

preferred revision petition before the National Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission. By the impugned

judgment and order, the National Commission has allowed

the said revision petition preferred by respondent No. 1

herein and set aside the order(s) passed by the District

Forum and State Commission, which has given rise to the

present appeal at the instance of the original complainant.

3. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length and having gone through the

judgment and order(s) passed by the District Forum, State

Commission and National Commission and the relevant

3 material on record and the certificate dated 01.12.2005

issued by the Divisional Manager, it can be seen that

respondent No. 2 herein was authorised to accept the

premium for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 –

insurance company. Thereafter, it was for respondent No.

2 to recover the amount of premium for and on behalf of

respondent No. 1 – insurance company and was required

to remit the same to respondent No. 1 – insurance

company and the policy was required to be issued by the

insurance company. It is the case on behalf of the

complainant that the deceased husband paid the amount

of premium of Rs. 4,000/­ with respondent No. 2 on

31.12.2006 and therefore the insurance cover would

commence from the completion of the fifteen (15) days of

payment of premium. It may be true that respondent No. 2

might have remitted the premium with the insurance

company belatedly. However, for the same insured cannot

be made to suffer. Under the circumstances, the insured

shall be entitled to the amount insured under the policies

for which the amount of premium was already paid prior to

the death of the insured. Under the circumstances, the

4 National Commission has committed a very serious error

in allowing the revision petition and setting aside the

orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State

Commission. The impugned judgment and order passed by

the National Commission is unsustainable.

4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and

order passed by the National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 2675 of

2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed

by the District Forum confirmed by the State Commission

is hereby restored. The appellant shall be entitled to the

claim amount under the policies along with the interest as

ordered by the District Forum to be deposited within a

period of eight weeks from today. The present appeal is

accordingly allowed. No costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. SEPTEMBER 23, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]

5