NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2894/2010

MAYA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

15 Oct 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2894 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 20/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1335/2007 of the State Commission Haryana)

1. MAYA RANI House No.2127-B, Block No.12, Shivpuri Colony, Near Dhulkot Station Ambala City Haryana	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. LIC OF INDIA & ANR. Branch Office Near Head Post Office, Ambala City Haryana 2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Through its Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Model Town, Karnal Karnal Haryana	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

NEMO

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 15 Oct 2010

ORDER

Neither the petitioner/complainant who has been served with the notice and has also removed defects as pointed out by the Registry is present nor any one on her behalf is present. -2- This revision has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 20th April, 2010 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula allowing appeal against the order of District forum. The dispute pertains to the payment of the payable amount under policy No.173126914 for Rs.70,000/- as also accident benefit under the policy No.174053770 for Rs.1,50,000/-. In regard to policy No. 173126914, the State Commission has returned the finding that it was lying lapse on the date of death of the life assured on 20th August, 2004 inasmuch as the premium instalment due on 25.6.2004 was not paid. 30 days grace period was permissible to deposit the premium amount falling due on 25.6.2004. Since the premium amount was not paid even within the grace period and upto the date of death of the life assured, the State Commission has rightly held the petitioner not entitled to any amount under the said policy. Coming to policy No. 174053770, condition No. 10.2 of the policy which has been extracted in the order of the State Commission would show that the LIC is not liable to pay the accident benefit amount if the life assured had died while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. It seems that DD report was lodged by the petitioner on 28.8.2004 with the police wherein she has admitted that the life assured was under the influence of -3- liquor at the time of fall from the roof. That being so, the State Commission had rightly held that the accidental benefit amount was also not payable to the petitioner under the said policy. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission warranting interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed.

......................J

K.S. GUPTA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

S.K. NAIK

MEMBER