Circuit Bench Aurangabad

StateCommission

CC/19/2011

Ambuji Subhanji Todke. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs.Metilda Stanley Sr.Vice President,Opertions HDFC Standerd Life Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.P.Ghanekar.

12 Aug 2013

ORDER

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
 
CC NO. 19 Of 2011
 
1. Ambuji Subhanji Todke.
R/o.House No.3/7,Sector-F,Sambhaji Colony,N-6,CIDCO,Aurangabad.
Aurangabad
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Mrs.Metilda Stanley Sr.Vice President,Opertions HDFC Standerd Life Insurance Co.Ltd.
Ramon House,H T Parekh Marg,169 Backbey Reclamation,Mumbai-400020.
Mumbai.
2. Grievance Redressal Officer,HDFC Standerd Life Insurance Co.Ltd.
5th Floor,Eureka Towers,Mindscape Complex,Link Road,Malad(West),Mumbai-400064.
3. Branch Manager,HDFC Standerd Life Insurance Co.Ltd.
Satar Complex,1st Floor, Near Hindistan Petrol Pump,Kranti Chowk, Aurangbad
Aurangabad
MS.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. S.M.SHEMBOLE PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MRS. UMA BORA MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
None.
......for the Complainant
 
None
......for the Opp. Party
ORDER

 

Per.Mr.S.M.Shembole Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

          Complainant Ambuji Subhanji Todke as well as its counsel Shri.A.B.Bhise are absent. None for the opponents is  present. The opponents are already proceeded ex-party. On the last date complainant as well as their counsel Shri.Bhise were absent. However, by way of last chance the matter was adjourned till today but nobody for the complainant is present. Hence, the complaint   deserves to be dismissed in default. It be recalled at 3.30. p.m. for order.


 2.       Matter is recalled at 3.35 p.m. but nobody for the complainant turned up. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

3.       However, we have perused the complaint, evidence affidavit of the complainant and copy of insurance premium receipt  and also copy of the letter issued by the opponent Insurance Company to the complainant returning the amount of initial premium Rs 3190/- as the contract remained unconcluded. On perusal of the copy of first premium receipt, it reflects that the amount of same premium which was paid has tobe adjusted w.e.f. 21/07/2010. However, unfortunately the insured died on 19/07/2010. Therefore, it is  obvious that the contract remained unconcluded and therefore the opponent Insurance Company has  rightly refunded the amount of initial premium to the complainant. Hence, complainant can not claim insurance amount.


4.       Therefore we find that the opponent Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the insurance claim. Hence, complaint is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.  


 

 
 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. S.M.SHEMBOLE]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. UMA BORA]
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.