Case nº Revision Petition No. 1926 Of 2008, (Against the Order dated 22/01/2004 in Appeal No. 1163/2004 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 30, 2016 (case Pushpa Devi Vs LIC of India and Anr.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Narottam Vyas, Adv. and For Respondents: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv.
PresidentDr. B.C. Gupta,Presiding Member
Resolution DateNovember 30, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member

  1. This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 22.01.2008, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 1163/2004, "Pusha Devi versus LIC & Ors.", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, filed by the complainant, the order dated 11.05.2004, passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh in CC No. 349 of 2003, dismissing the consumer complaint, was upheld.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that Murali Lal Vyas, the husband of the complainant Pushpa Devi was posted in the office of Assistant Director, Agriculture, Kapasan, Rajasthan, when he obtained an insurance policy of ₹50,000/- from the OP LIC under the Salary Savings Scheme, under which a premium of ₹300/- per month was to be deducted by the employer, i.e., the OP-2, Assistant Director, Agriculture (Extension). The said Murari Lal Vyas died on 26.09.98. The OP LIC refused to pay the claim after his death, saying that the policy had lapsed during his life time only, due to non-payment of premium. The LIC stated that only two monthly premiums had been paid under the policy, but the Policy-holder did not make any attempt to get the policy revived during his life time, although, he continued to receive his full salary and was fully aware that premium was not being deducted from his salary. The LIC also stated that it was the duty of the insured to provide Form 155 to the Department and to give them the right to deduct premium from his salary. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the LIC to pay the insured amount of ₹50,000/- alongwith interest @12% and all other benefits payable, alongwith compensation of ₹10,000/- and ₹2,000/- as litigation cost.

  3. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 11.05.2004, saying that no evidence had been produced to say whether the employer Assistant Director, Agriculture was informed, regarding the deduction of premium from the salary. The District Forum also observed that not even a single deduction was made by the employer in the case. The insured should have taken steps for the deduction of premium from his salary by the employer. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the...

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