//
you're reading...
legal issues

Not granted – in her application of 18.06.2001to the LIC, the complainant had categorically stated that her husband had committed suicide by drowning on 04.05.2001. In the inquest memorandum drawn up by the Police on the same day after recovery of the dead body, it was also stated that it appeared to be a case of suicide. In the form of requisition for autopsy of the body of the deceased, a similar remark was made. However, for the first time on 16.07.2001, the petitioner/complainant made a belated statement in her letter addressed to the LIC that her husband had died of accident and it was not a case of suicide.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Life Insurance Corporation of India

Life Insurance Corporation of India (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 636 OF 2007

(From the order dated 21.11.2006 of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in First Appeal No.2252/2004)

 

Smt. Kamalesh Bansal

W/o Late Dinesh Chand Bansal                                             Petitioner

R/o Donaoli, Lashkar, Gwalior

 

versus

 

1. Senior Zonal Manager

Life Insurance Corporation of India

City Centre, Gwalior                                                        Respondents

2. Branch Manager

Life Insurance Corporation of India

Moti Mahal Road, Gwalior

 

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA                     PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA                       MEMBER

 

For the Petitioner                                         Mr. P.K. Chugh, Advocate

For the Respondents                                    Mr. S.P. Mittal, Advocate

 

PRONOUNCED ON 3rd JULY,  2012


 

ORDER

 

ANUPAM DASGUPTA

 

This revision petition challenges the order dated 21.11.2006 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (hereafter, ‘the State Commission’). By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal (No. 2252/2004) filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.10.2004 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in complaint case No.413/2003. By its order, the District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

 

2.     The petitioner/complainant was the wife and nominee of Dinesh Chand Bansal who had insured himself with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) under three polices of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively, each with accident benefit of equal amounts. The life assured died on account of drowning on 04.05.2001. Admittedly, the respondent LIC paid up the sum assured under each of the three policies. The dispute was about admissibility of the accident benefits under these policies which the LIC declined on the ground that the life assured had committed suicide and hence, accident benefit was not payable under the terms & conditions of the policies.

 

3.     On the petitioner filing a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on its part, the LIC contested the allegation that the life assured had died of accidental drowning. It pointed out that in her application of 18.06.2001to the LIC, the complainant had categorically stated that her husband had committed suicide by drowning on 04.05.2001. In the inquest memorandum drawn up by the Police on the same day after recovery of the dead body, it was also stated that it appeared to be a case of suicide. In the form of requisition for autopsy of the body of the deceased, a similar remark was made. However, for the first time on 16.07.2001, the petitioner/complainant made a belated statement in her letter addressed to the LIC that her husband had died of accident and it was not a case of suicide.

 

4.     On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint and, likewise, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

 

5.     We have heard Mr. P.K. Chugh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent LIC and considered the documents on record.

 

6.     No material/evidence has been brought to our notice by the petitioner in her revision petition to warrant a conclusion different from that arrived at by the District Forum and the State Commission which was based on an admitted statement of the petitioner herself. As a result, there is no ground for us to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission under the provisions of section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

Sd/-

……………………………………..

(ANUPAM DASGUPTA)

 

Sd/-

……………………………………..

(SURESH CHANDRA)

 

Raj/

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,185 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: