NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4110/2009

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANDI KANTHAMMA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MS. ANJALLI BANSALL

18 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4110 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 22/07/2009 in Appeal No. 772/2006 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Having Its Registered office At. 3 Middeton Street.Kolkata-700071 and Regional Office At. Level . IV Tower II. 124, Connaught Circus. NEw Delhi -110001 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. BANDI KANTHAMMA & ANR.W/o. Rajaiah R/o. Manakondur Village. and Mandal Karimanagar Distt. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MS. ANJALLI BANSALL
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 18 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner who has strenuously urged before me that in various documents including FIR, Post-mortem report, Inquest etc. the age of the deceased is stated to be around 70 years or more, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount in terms of the policy conditions. It is also urged by her that the present Petitioner was, in fact, not made a party to the proceedings before the District Consumer Forum. The District Consumer Forum had, in fact, allowed the complaint as against Andhra Bank through whom the insurance had been done by the Petitioner. The Bank had covered the employees under the Group Insurance Scheme in terms of the scheme of the Insurance Company. At the time of entry into the scheme, the deceased had given the age as 57 years as can be seen from the account opening form which is at page 27. The Andhra Bank had acted upon the said document accepting the age of the deceased as 57 years and in view of this the Insurance Company had covered the account holder whose name had been furnished by the Bank. In fact, this is the basic document on the basis of which the insurance cover was provided by the Insurance Company through the Andhra Bank and the Petitioner cannot now turn around and reject the claim on the ground that the Complainant was more than 70 years and as such could not be covered under the scheme. The Petitioner should have verified the age at the time of given insurance cover which was not done and this itself amounts to deficiency in service. In view of this, credence has to be given to this document over the documents referred to by Counsel for the Petitioner. In fact, no authentic document or evidence has been produced in order to suggest that the age of the deceased was not one which was given in the account opening form. Though the Insurance Company was not a party to the proceedings before the District Consumer Forum yet it had full opportunity to place its case before the State Commission and the State Commission after examining the contentions of the present Petitioner has directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount assured under the said cover with interest. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as I do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders of fora below. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER