NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2651/2010

SOW. MANIK SUDHAKAR DAHALE & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. NITIN LONKAR

22 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2651 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/01/2010 in Appeal No. 1886/2005 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. SOW. MANIK SUDHAKAR DAHALE & ORS.Residing at Dattatraya Krupa, Opp. Jagtap Hospital, Kadu Lane, Newasa, Tal. NewasaAhmednagarMaharashtra2. MRS. DEEPALI CHANDRAKANT DAHALEResiding at Dattatraya Krupa, Opp. Jagtap Hospital, Kadu Lane, Newasa, Tal. NewasaAhmednagarMaharashtra3. MASTER OM PRAKASH DAHALEResiding at Dattatraya Krupa, Opp. Jagtap Hospital, Kadu Lane, Newasa, Tal. NewasaAhmednagarMaharashtra ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. LIC OF INDIABranct at Shevgoan, tal. ShevgoanAhmednagarMaharashtra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. NITIN LONKAR
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 22 Sep 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. Delay condoned. The revision is filed against the concurrent findings of two fora below. The deceased, Chandrakant had taken insurance policy for Rs.5 lakhs on 28.10.2001. The premium in respect of the same was paid upto October 2003 and the premium was due on 28.10.2003, which was not paid. The premium could be paid with grace period till 28.11.2003. However, during the grace period, Chandrakant had not paid the premium and he died on 30.12.2003. Therefore, admittedly, the premium in respect of said insurance policy was paid for two years. According to the insurance company, the policy was in lapsed condition and the insurance claim was repudiated. Before the District Forum, the complainant had tried to place reliance on a book of which page 111 was relied upon by the complainant. It is stated therein that if three years premium is paid then, LRs of policy holder would be entitled to the claim in the policy. This concession was also extended to cases where insurance premium was paid only for two years. However, the District Forum after going through the same, found that the said concession of payment of installments for two years is not applicable to the “Jeevan Shree” policy in question. In view of this, the claim was rejected. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the State Commission in view of the findings of the Distinct Forum. We do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER