Case nº Revision Petition No. 4159 of 2012 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, March 11, 2014 (case Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. Vs Ranganath)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Pankul Nagpal, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
PresidentK.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member) and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
Resolution DateMarch 11, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member)

  1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 4.6.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 596/2012, The Branch Manager, LIC of India & Anr. v. Sri Ranganath by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent's mother Smt. Shankaramma obtained LIC Policy No. 665061575 for a sum of Rs. 50,000 under New Janaraksha Plan with profits for a period of 16 years commencing from 19.3.2009. Complainant was nominee and legal heir of his mother. Smt. Shankaramma died on 12.5.2009. Complainant submitted claim before OP/Petitioner, but that was repudiated by letter dated 9.2.2011 on the ground that policy lapsed before death. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint and submitted that life assured did not pay due premium within the grace period and quarterly premium due from December, 2009 was not paid; hence, policy lapsed. It was further submitted that in usual practice, OP in the premium receipt itself shows next date for payment of premium and no separate intimation is required for payment of premium and rightly repudiated the claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 50,000 along with interest @ 9% p.a. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission at admission stage against which, this revision petition has been filed.

  2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

  3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as policy already lapsed before death of insured, Insurance Company rightly repudiated claim, but learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

  4. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant's mother obtained insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 50,000 on 19.3.2009 and quarterly premium was to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT