LIC OF INDIA LTD. V/S C. VENKAT RAO & ANR. - Consumer Court Case

NCDRC

RP/3537/2009

C. VENKAT RAO & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

08 Feb 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 31 Aug 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3537/2009
(Against the Order dated 16/06/2009 in Appeal No. 831/2008 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)

1. C. VENKAT RAO & ANR.Block-30J, Road-18, Camp-O, Near Shagram Chowk, BhelaiDurgC.G						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. LIC OF INDIA LTD.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER

For the Appellant :

NEMO

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 08 Feb 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.

Despite notice being sent by the Registry on 15.2.2008, neither defects have been removed nor is any one present on behalf of the petitioners. Revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Still we propose to decide the revision on merits. C. Madhukar Rao, life assured had purchased 19 policies, out of which payment of 11 policies has been made to the petitioners/complainants. Claim in respect of remaining 8 policies was repudiated by the respondent/opposite party on ground of the life assured having committed suicide on a railway track on -2- 26.3.2006. Under Condition No.7 of the policies, in case of suicide by life assured before expiry of one year of the purchase of policies, claim is not payable. Remaining 8 policies were purchased within one year of death of the life assured. State Commission has given cogent reasons to reach the conclusion that life assured had committed suicide on railway track on the said date. In this backdrop, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed on both the grounds.

......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER