NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/392/2004

SMT. SAVITRI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

RATNESH BANSAL

01 Jul 2008

ORDER

Date of Filing: 17 Feb 2004

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI.Revision Petition(RP) No. RP/392/2004
(Against the Order dated 10/09/2003 in Appeal No. 565/2003 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. SMT. SAVITRI DEVIW/O.LATE SHRI MANGE RAM R/O.E-25,JYOTI COLONY,LODI ROAD SHAHDARA,DELHI-110032,2. SMT. SAVITRI DEVIW/O.LATE SHRI MANGE RAM R/O.E-25,JYOTI COLONY,LODI ROAD SHAHDARA,DELHI-110032, ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIATHROUGH,ITS,BRANCH MANAGER GENERAL MANAGER /INCHARGE,CONCERNED 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-5,D.D.A.SHOPPING COMPLEX,RAJIND2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIATHROUGH,ITS,BRANCH MANAGER GENERAL MANAGER /INCHARGE,CONCERNED 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-5,D.D.A.SHOPPING COMPLEX,RAJIND3. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIATHROUGH,ITS,BRANCH MANAGER GENERAL MANAGER /INCHARGE,CONCERNED 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK-5,D.D.A.SHOPPING COMPLEX,RAJIND ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :For RATNESH BANSAL,(NEMO)
For the Respondent :Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Advocate with Mr. Kuldeep Singh For N/A

Dated : 01 Jul 2008
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.

           Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 10th September, 2003, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. A 565 of 2003, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 7th April, 2003 passed by the District Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in complaint Case No. 118 of 2002 dismissing the complaint, the original complainant has filed this revision petition.

 

Undisputedly, the husband of the complainant obtained an insurance policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter be referred as the LIC) for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 28th December, 1998. He was working as a fitter in the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) Yamuna Vihar Depot, Delhi. He expired on 12th September, 2000. The claim filed by the widow (complainant) was repudiated on the ground that the complainant had suppressed the fact that he had taken medical treatment prior to 1998 i.e. prior to taking of the LIC policy.

 

            The District Forum and the State Commission accepted the contention of the LIC by referring to various leave applications filed by the insured with the Office of the DTC for obtaining leave and rejected the complaint.

           

            It is to be stated that in all the leave applications, nowhere it has been stated that the insured was suffering from any serious ailment. It appears that the applications were filed for obtaining leave from the DTC on one or the other pretext. Further, we have verified the medical certificates produced on record by the LIC. These certificates at the most indicate that for sometime the insured had suffered from bronchitis for few days or that he suffered from dysentery or that he suffered from fever for one or two days and that on one or two occasions it has been mentioned by the ayurvedic doctor that the insured had suffered from fever and chest pain and there is no further diagnosis.  It appears that these certificates were obtained by the insured for getting leave from the DTC, but such applications cannot be the basis for repudiating the claim as dysentery, some coughing or fever are normal ailments to a human being and that we cannot ignore the tendency of the employees of filing such applications for obtaining leave during the festival season.

 

            In this view of the matter this revision petition is allowed, the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside and the LIC is directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- without interest to the complainant within a period of six weeks from today, if not paid by this time. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.



......................JM.B. SHAHPRESIDENT
......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOMEMBER