Case nº Revision Petition No. 1682 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 17/02/2016 in Appeal No. 52/2012 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, December 05, 2016 (case Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Utpal Shrimal)

JudgeFor Appellant: Ms. Bhabna Das, Advocate Mr. Arunav Patnaik, Advocate and For Respondents: Dr. Harsh Surana, Advocate and Ms. Deepali S. Surana
PresidentMr. K.S. Chaudhari,Presiding Member
Resolution DateDecember 05, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

  1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 52 of 2012-- Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Shri Utpal Shrimal by which, appeal was dismissed.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent obtained medi-claim policy from OP/petitioner from 13.10.2009 to 6.5.2011 for himself, his wife and two daughters. Complainant''s wife Garima was treated in hospital from 6.5.2011 to 8.5.2011 and complainant incurred expenses of Rs.25,714/-. Complainant submitted claim, but OP remitted only Rs.1050/- and repudiated rest of the claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint, admitted issuance of policy, but submitted that claim was rightly repudiated as per terms and conditions of policy. It was further submitted that TPA E-Meditek Service Ltd. had not given clear decision regarding Major Surgical Benefit and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.24,139/- along with Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

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

  4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is not speaking order; hence, revision...

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