Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/588

SMT.USHA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

SH.H.SHARMA

15 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 06.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.168/2017 by the District Commission, Gwalior)

 

SMT. USHA SHARMA.                                                                                     …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA.                                                …         RESPONDENT.

                                                                                                          

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI             :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY     :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

15.06.2023

 

          Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Rajneesh Tiwari officer appears on behalf of the respondent.

           

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.168/2017 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

2.                The complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party, regarding non-payment of NVA amount of the LIC Market Plus Single Premium Insurance Policy no.202279789 obtained by her on 17.10.2006.   It is alleged that despite repeated requests, the NVA amount was not paid which according to the terms and conditions of the policy was payable after a period of three years.  The complainant thus filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

-2-

3.                Heard. Perused the record.

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint is barred by limitation as the complainant had obtained the policy in the year 2006 and since then there has been no correspondence between the parties.

5.                On going through the impugned order, we find that the District Commission has dismissed the complaint at the admission stage, holding it to be barred by limitation.  It is alleged by the complainant that the NVA amount to be paid under the policy after three years has not been paid by the LIC and the said amount still lies with the opposite party. Also, taking into consideration the fact that the policy terms and conditions according to which the NVA amount under the policy was payable after a period of three years, we find that the District Commission ought to have issued notice to opposite party and at least version of the opposite party could have taken on record before passing the order.  The submission of the opposite party on the aforesaid aspect ought to have been considered before dismissing the complaint as such.

6.                In view of the aforesaid, we remand the matter back to the District Commission for decision afresh.  All the contentions of the parties, including regarding maintainability and limitation are kept open.  

 

-3-

7.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 20.07.2023

8.                The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.

9.                Counsel for complainant/appellant is directed to supply copy of complaint along with accompanied documents to the counsel appearing for the opposite party/respondent-LIC on the date of appearance before the District Commission. The opposite party/respondent shall file reply to complaint within 30 days, from the date of appearance of parties before the District Commission.

10.              Needless to mention that observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission, while passing the order.

11.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. However, no order as to costs.

 

                 (A. K. Tiwari)                         (Dr. Srikant Pandey)           

              Presiding Member                              Member