Haryana

StateCommission

A/1157/2017

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

REENA - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV GOYAL

15 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1157 of 2017

Date of Institution:  28.09.2017

Date of Decision:    15.11.2017

 

Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Branch Office Mujal’s Ground Floor, GT Road,Near Sanjay Chowk, Opposite Paliwal House, Panipat, through their Duly Constituted Attorney available at Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite DLF Golf Club, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122003.

 

Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Reena wife of late Shri Raj Kumar, resident of Village Dharm Kheri, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, Haryana.

 

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

   

 

Present:     Shri Inderjit Singh, counsel for the appellant.

                            

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)

 

By filing this appeal, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated March 06^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Reena-complainant was allowed, directing the Insurance Company to pay the sum assured, that is, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- of policies No.TWD3138843 and ALA3096297 respectively to the complainant and children of Raj Kumar-life insured on account of death of life insured.

2.      The life insured had purchased policies No.TWD3138843 and ALA3096297 on February 15^th and 16^th 2012 respectively. He died due to heart attack in Village Bass Azamshahpur, District Hisar. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated on the ground that the life insured had committed suicide and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the complainant.

3.      At the outset, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that there is no concrete evidence on record to prove that the life insured had committed suicide. In view of this, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. The appeal is dismissed.

4.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

  

 

Announced 15.11.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

  D.R.