NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3052/2011

PARSHOTAMBHAI BHIKABHAI KAPADIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

RASHMIKUMAR MANILAL VITHALANI

23 Nov 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3052 OF 2011
 
(Against the Order dated 17/06/2011 in Appeal No. 134/2008 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. PARSHOTAMBHAI BHIKABHAI KAPADIA
R/o Khodiyar builders, Desai Wadi, Near Somnath Temple, Jetpur Pin - 360370
Junagadh
Gujarat
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,LIC, Mahila College Chowk,
Rajkot - 360001
Gujarat
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr.R.M. Vithlani, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 23 Nov 2011
ORDER

Respondent’s son had taken Jeevanshree life policy in March 2004 with retrospective date with effect from March 2001 for a sum of Rs.5 lakh.  Petitioner was required to pay quarterly instalments of Rs.6,306/- in March, June, September and December.  Respondent’s son paid the quarterly instalments for March and June 2004 but did not pay for September 2004.  He died in January 2005.  Petitioner lodged the claim with the respondent, which was repudiated on the ground that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition.  Respondent made ex gracia payment of Rs.1,60,970/- to the petitioner.  Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum.

        District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the insurance amount of Rs.3,39,063/- after deducting the unpaid premium with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the complaint within one month of the passing of order, failing which the amount was to carry interest at the rate of 12%.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

        Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum and held that since the policy was lying in a lapsed condition, the respondent was not liable to pay the insured amount.

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Since the policy was lying in a lapsed condition, respondent was not obliged to pay the insured amount to the petitioner.  Dismissed.

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

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.