NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4587/2009

VISHAMBER DAYAL & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

MR. RAKESH NAUTIYAL

01 Apr 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4587 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 29/10/2009 in Appeal No. 913/2006 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. VISHAMBER DAYAL & ANR.R/o Kaman, Tehsil: Cama,Bharatpur Rajasthan2. RAJRANIR/o Kaman, Tehsil: Kaman,Bharatpur Rajasthan ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. LIC OF INDIA & ORS.Yog Kamana BuildingMumbai2. THE BRANCH MANAGERBhartiya Jivan Bima Nigam, Branch:Deeg, Thsil:Deeg, BharatpurRajasthan3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGERBhartiya Jivan Bima Nigam, Bhagwan Singh Road, Jeevan Prakash,JaipurRajasthan4. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAINR/o Trikutiya-Mohalla-Kaman, Tehsil Kaman,BharatpurRajasthan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 01 Apr 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 learned counsel for petitioner, on admission. Deceased – Sandeep Kumar Mittal, son of petitioners, submitting a proposal on 31.12.2001 to secure life insurance policy from respondent – Corporation for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, also made deposit of premium of Rs. 3,820/- which was acknowledged by Corporation on 03.01.2002. However, before policy could be issued by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, deceased Mittal having met with an accident on 04.01.2002, succumbed to injury. Since claim lodged by petitioners was not settled despite long-waiting, a consumer complaint came to be filed with District Forum seeking award for assured value of policy besides other reliefs. Claim was resisted by insurance company, for there being no concluded contract between parties. Both District Forum and State Commission, in appeal unsuited petitioners, having taken notice of judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of LIC Vs. Rajavasireddy Komalavalli Kama & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2917/1970. It is now well crystallized by catena of decisions of Hon’ble Courts that contract of insurance shall be deemed to have been concluded only when party to whom an offer is made, accepts it unconditionally and, communication of acceptance is also made to the person making the offer. Undisputed facts are that though proposal was submitted by deceased and also premium was paid, there had been no issuance of insurance coverage to the proposal by insurance company and hence contract remained unconcluded. Attributing red-tapism with respondent insurance company, learned counsel for petitioner would urge that respondent Corporation being a social welfare institution, petitioners are not to suffer for their red-tapism. Since proposer died within a week, before proposal submitted by him could be accepted by insurance company, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the latter even for delay or red-tapism as has been the case of petitioners. Revision petition bearing no merit, is dismissed at the stage of admission itself, requiring no further consideration, but without order as to cost.



......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER