Haryana

StateCommission

CC/51/2019

NIRMALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

EDELWEISS TOKIO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

NITESH SINGHI

26 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint  No.51 of  2019

Date of the Institution:07.02.2019

Date of Decision: 26.02.2019

 

Nirmala w/o Sh. Late Sh.Satyawan R/o H.No.31, Indian Colony, Sonipat, Haryana 131001.

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Edulweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 253, Sector 12, 2^nd floor opposite Mini Secretariat, Karnal, Haryana-132001.

2.      Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Ltd., 2^nd Floor SCO 2447-48, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh-160017.

3.      Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Ltd. 3^rd and 4^th Floor, tower 3, Wing ‘B’, Kohinoor City Mall, Kohinoor City, Kirol Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai-4000070.

                                                .….Opposite Parties

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for complainant.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant purchased insurance policy of Rs.15/- lacs from the opposite parties and in case of unfortunate death due to any accident, the nominee of the policy holder will get additional payment of Rs.15 lacs as a rider, under the policy. The husband of the complainant was expired due to electric shock on 12.12.2017.Being a nominee, the claim was filed, but, the O.ps. released the amount of premium instead of Rs.30/- lacs.  She requested the Ops to release the amount, but, the Ops did not paid any heed towards the genuine claim of the complainant.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Nitesh Singhi, the learned counsel for the complainant has heard at length at the stage of issuing the notice of motion.  The documents placed on the record has also been properly perused and examined.

3.      As per the contentions made by the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant has submitted the representation dated 12.06.2018 to the insurer to release the amount of policy of Rs.30/- lacs, but, the insurance company has not taken the decision to dis-allow   or allow the claim amount sought by the complainant.  Hence, it is a fit case where only the direction be issued to the O.Ps. to decide the claim submitted by the complainant within the period of one month from the date of passing this order. Hence, the complaint is disposed of accordingly.

 

 

February 26th, 2019   Mrs.Manjula        Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                          Addl.Bench                    Addl.Bench                 

S.K.