Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6731 OF 2022
Smt. Sulakshna ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 04.02.2016 passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission)
in Revision Petition No. 2675 of 2015, the original
complainant has preferred the present appeal.
2. There was an agreement between respondent No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 herein regarding issuance of insurance
cover. It was a group insurance. That a sum of Rs. 4,000/
was deposited with respondent No. 2 towards premium on
Signature Not Verified
31.12.2006. Respondent No. 2 issued a cover note on the
Digitally signed by
SNEHA
Date: 2022.09.23
16:26:00 IST
Reason:
very day i.e., 31.12.2006. The husband of original
1
complainant died on 17.02.2007 in a road accident.
However, it appears that respondent No. 1 – insurance
company issued policies for the period from 09.03.2007 to
08.02.2008 on the ground that respondent No. 2 credited
the amount of premium on 09.03.2007. Therefore,
respondent No. 1 – insurance company refused to pay the
amount and refused to settle the claim. Therefore, the
complainant filed Complaint Case No. 132/10 before the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak
(hereinafter referred to as the District Forum). In the said
complaint, a statement was made on behalf of the counsel
appearing for respondent No. 1 – insurance company that
they will settle the claim of complainant within time period
of one month if the complainant submits required
document to the company. Accordingly, the District Forum
disposed of the said complaint vide order dated
14.10.2010. However, thereafter, the claim was not settled
and therefore, the appellant herein – original complainant
again approached the District Forum being Complaint No.
278. By order dated 13.01.2015, the District Forum
allowed the said complaint and directed respondent No. 1
2
to pay the sum insured in the respective policies
amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/ and Rs. 2,00,000/ along
with interest @ 9% per annum.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
the District Forum allowing the complaint, respondent No.
1 – insurance company preferred the appeal before the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being
First Appeal No. 169 of 2015. The State Commission
dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, respondent No. 1
preferred revision petition before the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission. By the impugned
judgment and order, the National Commission has allowed
the said revision petition preferred by respondent No. 1
herein and set aside the order(s) passed by the District
Forum and State Commission, which has given rise to the
present appeal at the instance of the original complainant.
3. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length and having gone through the
judgment and order(s) passed by the District Forum, State
Commission and National Commission and the relevant
3
material on record and the certificate dated 01.12.2005
issued by the Divisional Manager, it can be seen that
respondent No. 2 herein was authorised to accept the
premium for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 –
insurance company. Thereafter, it was for respondent No.
2 to recover the amount of premium for and on behalf of
respondent No. 1 – insurance company and was required
to remit the same to respondent No. 1 – insurance
company and the policy was required to be issued by the
insurance company. It is the case on behalf of the
complainant that the deceased husband paid the amount
of premium of Rs. 4,000/ with respondent No. 2 on
31.12.2006 and therefore the insurance cover would
commence from the completion of the fifteen (15) days of
payment of premium. It may be true that respondent No. 2
might have remitted the premium with the insurance
company belatedly. However, for the same insured cannot
be made to suffer. Under the circumstances, the insured
shall be entitled to the amount insured under the policies
for which the amount of premium was already paid prior to
the death of the insured. Under the circumstances, the
4
National Commission has committed a very serious error
in allowing the revision petition and setting aside the
orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State
Commission. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the National Commission is unsustainable.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 2675 of
2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed
by the District Forum confirmed by the State Commission
is hereby restored. The appellant shall be entitled to the
claim amount under the policies along with the interest as
ordered by the District Forum to be deposited within a
period of eight weeks from today. The present appeal is
accordingly allowed. No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]
5