NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2400/2009

LIC OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM NATH MITTAL - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJAT BHALLA

17 Jul 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 06 Jul 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/2400/2009
(Against the Order dated 30/03/2009 in Appeal No. 2222/2006 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. LIC OF INDIABranch office . bgaratpur . ja tant jaj56 thje th Through Regional office. Jeevan Bharti Builing -1 Connaught Place. New Delhi -110001 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. RAM NATH MITTALR/o. Salooji Furnitute House. Near . Indian Bank kotwali Road, Bharatpur Rajasthan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. RAJAT BHALLA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 17 Jul 2009
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.

          Petitioner insurance company was the opposite party before the District Forum. 

          Respondent/complainant, being the father of the deceased insured, had taken a life policy with Double Accident Benefit for his son in the sum of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner.  His son died in an accident.  Being the nominee, complainant filed an insurance claim with the petitioner.  Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.49,512/- after deducting the premium amount of Rs.488 by way of cheque but refused to make the payment for the Double Accident Benefit of the equal amount.  Complainant, being aggrieved, filed a complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- as Accident Benefit of the policy along with interest at the rate of 9% with effect from 18.11.2003, i.e., the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Rs.2,000/- were ordered to be paid as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The stand taken by the petitioner was that Double Accident Benefit was not given as the policy was in lapsed condition.  State Commission, in its order, has observed that the petitioner, after having accepted the premium and paying the amount of the policy, could not deny the accident benefit on the ground that the policy was in a lapsed condition.

          We have heard the counsel for the petitioner.  We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The petitioner, having paid the insured amount treating the policy not to be lapsed, could not deny the benefit of double accident on the ground that the policy had lapsed on the date of the accident.  Petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold.  Counsel for the petitioner, at the end, submitted that the respondent had accepted the money in full and final settlement.  This argument has to be noticed and rejected.  The benefit has to be given under the policy and not on the basis of the receipt given by the complainant.  Dismissed.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER