NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4438/2009

SATYABHAMA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LICI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SARAD SINGHANIA

04 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4438 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 07/08/2009 in Appeal No. 58/2008 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. SATYABHAMA SHARMAHindusthan Building, Chittaranjan Avenue,Kolkata-700012 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. LICIHindusthan Building, Chittaranjan AvenueKolkata-700012 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 04 Jan 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.

In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 7.8.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal Kerala dismissing appeal against the order dated 11.1.2008 of a District Forum whereby complaint was dismissed. Ground for repudiation of claim by the respondent/opposite party-insurance co. was that the life assured in the proposal form submitted for purchase of policy had suppressed the material fact that he was suffering from Type 2 diabetes for the last 7 years and was on medication. Treatment certificate at page 36 would show that at the time of admission of the life assured in AMRI, son of the life assured had stated that life assured was having T2 diabetes since 7 years and was on medication. Reading of the two orders passed by fora below would show that the explanation given by the son making that statement that the statement was made as he wanted quick admission of the life assured in hospital was disbelieved by them. Further certificate dated 31.10.2005 of Dr. P. Bhattacharya wherein he stated that life assured was not diabetic and by mistake said statement was given by the son of life assured was further disbelieved by the fora below. Having heard Shri Singhania, we are not inclined to take a view different from that taken by the fora below in disbelieving the said evidence. There is no illegality or jurisdictional errors in the orders of fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. It will be open to the petitioner to apply for refund of the premium amount paid to the insurance co., who will take appropriate steps in accordance with the Regulations/Rules/instructions.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOMEMBER