NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2945/2013

MADDI JAYALAKSHMI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRIRAM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. VADREVU PATTABHIRAM

16 Jul 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2945 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 22/05/2013 in Appeal No. 100/2012 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MADDI JAYALAKSHMI
W/O MADDI LATE MADHAVA RAO, R/O SABANA VEEDHI, TEKKALI TOWN, & MANDAL,
DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM
A.P
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SHRIRAM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 47-12-6/7, 1st Floor, Shriram House, Behind Sangam Sarat Theatre, Dwarkanagar
Visakhapatnam - 530 016
A.P.
2. SHRIRAM LIFE INSURENCE CO LTD.,
REP BY ITS ASST GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE DOOR, NO- 3-6-478, III ROAD, ANAND ESTATE , LIBERTY ROAD, HIMAYAT NAGAR,
HYDERABAD - 500029
A.P
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Vadrevu Pattabhiram, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. S. P. Mittal, Advocate

Dated : 16 Jul 2014
ORDER

 

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      Learned counsel for the parties present.  Arguments heard.

2.      Shri Maddi Madhava Rao, husband of the complainant, smt. Maddi Jayalakshmi applied for two insurance policies on 20.12.2006 and paid Rs.10,000/- each towards the premiums.  The date of maturity was 28.12.2011.  Unfortunately, Shri Maddi Madhava Rao expired on 31.12.2006.   The policies were sent to the complainant/petitioner on 1.1.2007 after his death for personal service.  Shri Maddi Madhava Rao had died before he communicated the acceptance.  It is clear that Shri Maddi Madhava Rao died after three days of submission of proposal forms.

3.      The State Commission has rightly placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority reported in LIC of India vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and Others AIR 1984 SC 1014 wherein it was held that the contract of insurance shall stand concluded only when the party whom an offer has been made accepts it, unconditionally, and communicates his acceptance to the person making the offer. 

-3-

Consequently, there was no concluding contract.  Therefore, the claim made by his wife, Smt. Maddi Jayalakshmi was rightly rejected.

4.      The revision petition has no merits, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.   

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
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.