LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. PURAN CHAND
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-5-16
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 20,2010

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
PURAN CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No. 56/2008, decided on 24.2.2009, whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and appellants were held jointly and severally to pay the double accident benefit to the respondent minus the basic sum assured which had already been paid, within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. In addition to this appellants were directed to pay compensation to the respondent quantified at Rs. 5,000/ - and litigation cost, assessed at Rs. 2000/ -.
(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the record are, that the respondent who is the son of the deceased Sh. Surjeet Katoch who died in accident on 27.4.2007, and respondent being nominee of the Jeevan Suraksha Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 152093451 in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ - with double accident benefit filed the complaint against the appellants, as his claim was repudiated by the appellants on the ground that he is not entitled for double accident claim benefit against the captioned Policy in view of clause 85 of the Policy. Reason being the death of the life assured had occurred when he was engaged in hazardous occupation. As such there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellants.
(3.) IN this background, complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed against the appellants wherein the respondent claimed double accident benefit alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum till the realization of the benefits and cost in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ -, and Rs. 5,000/ - was also claimed for mental harassment and torture. Appellants contested the claim of the respondent on the ground that it was rightly repudiated by them. Their plea was that there is no deficiency of service on their part since the respondent was not entitled to double accident benefit against the captioned policy in view of clause 85 of the policy, because the death of the life assured had occurred when he was engaged in hazardous occupation.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.