19/08/2024, 11:47 about:blank
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 593 OF 2020
(Against the Order dated 22/01/2020 in Appeal No. 05/2020 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. DEEPIKA DAHIYA & 2 ORS.
2. .
. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. NEERAJ GUPTA & MR. KAMAL GUPTA, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT : APPEARANCE NOT MARKED
Dated : 19 July 2023
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consum
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant and the Respondents (hereinafter also referre
3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are th
legal heirs of the deceased Amardeep Singh, being the wife and minor child, but the petitioner despite the said letter dated 06.03.2018 had disbu
4. Vide Order dated 15.11.2019 in the CC no. 580 of 2018 the District Forum has allowed the complaint filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 h
(i) Refund the amount of Rs.5,03,060/- each to complainant nos. 1 & 2 ( i.e. 1/3rd share each of the total disbursed amount of Rs.15,09,180
(ii) To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.
(iii) To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 15.11.2019 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vid
6. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 22.01.2020 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) Order dated 22.01.2020 of the State Commission and the Order dated 15.11.2019 of District Forum suffers from serious infirmities, raises su
(ii) Petitioner herein has acted in terms of the policy approved by the IRDA and as per the Insurance Act, 1939. The State Commission a
(iii) Below Foras committed material irregularity in holding that mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Insurance Act does not
Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015. Below Foras have utterly failed to consider the aforesaid legal provision and renders the same nugatory.
(iv) Below Foras erred in comparing the benefits under insurance policy to family pension and other emoluments of a Government emp
(v) The Forums below committed error in holding that complainants and respondent no.3 are the first class legal hers as per Hindu Suc
about:blank 1/3
19/08/2024, 11:47 about:blank
(vi) Below Foras failed to appreciate the fact that if a nomination is made under Section 39 (7) of the Insurance Act, 1938, the money p
(vii) Below Foras erroneously relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Sarbati Devi vs. Usha Devi (AIR 1984 SC 346) for holding
insurance Policy.
(viii) State Commission and District Forum erred, while interpreting Section 6 of the Married Women Property Act 1874, as in the prese
7. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Argumen
7.1. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 argued that Respondent No.3 by not challenging the order of State Commission has accepted t
7.2 In the instant matter, four statutes (provisions) are referred to and are to be read harmoniously with each other for the ends o
(a) Section 39, Insurance Act, 1938
(b) Section 6, Married Women Property Act, 1874
(c) Schedule, Hindu Succession Act, 1956
(d) Rule 5 (5) proviso, General Provision Fund Rules
There is no bar on the Consumer Courts to import the provisions of other statutes for the ends of justice.
i. Petitioner has relied upon Section 39 of Insurance Act and has based its complete case on the same, according to which the insurer has to
ii. That it has been held time and again that section 39 of Insurance Act cannot be read in isolation to other related legislations. All the four s
7.3 As per the Policy Guidelines of the Petitioner the nominee should be the person who should take care of the welfare of the fa
7.4. That reading section 39 in the light of the policy guidelines and the observation of the RTI Appellate Authority of the Petitio
7.5 As per the condition mentioned in the policy document itself, when two category of persons are available ( nominee and the
7.6. Courts below have not done anything against the Article 141 of the Constitution of India by following the Judgement passed
Sarbati Devi's Case still holds good.
7.7. As regards contentions of Petitioner, they repeated most of the points which are stated under para 6, grounds for challenging
8. We have carefully gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, relevant records, rival contentions of the parties, provision
“7 Subject to the other provisions of this section, where the holder of a policy of insurance on his own life nominates his parent
9. Sub-section 10 further provides that provisions of Sub-section 7 shall apply to all policies maturing for payment after the commencemen
about:blank 2/3
19/08/2024, 11:47 about:blank
“ 10 The provisions of sub-section ( 7) and ( 8) shall apply to all policies of life insurance maturing for payment after the comme
10. As regards Respondent’s reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi ( supra ) it is to be noted that this judgment is
“1.1. A mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 does not have the ef
1.2 An analysis of the provisions of Section 39 of the Act clearly established that the policy holder
mode of succession provided by the stature and incorrectly styled as "statutory testament" by the
1.3 The language of Section 39 of the Act is neither capable of altering the course of succession under
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that :
“Moreover there is one other strong circumstance in this case which dissuades us from taking a view contrary to the decisions of a
11. It is contended by the Petitioner herein that subsequent to the above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Parliament in 2015 amend
argued that dispute involved in Shrerya Vidyarthi case ( supra ) was not pertaining to an insurance issue, hence this judgment is not a ratio dec
12. We have also gone through the provision of Section 6 ( 1) of the Married Women’s Property Act 1874, relevant portion of which is repro
“1) A policy of insurance effected by any married man on his own life, and expressed on the face of it to be for the benefit of his w
13. In the instant case, when the policy was issued, the policy holder was not married and even after the marriage, the nomination made by h
14. Keeping in view the above, we are of the view that both State Commission and District Forum erred in concluding that action of Petition
15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various p
16. Parties to bear their respective costs.
17. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
................................................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH
PRESIDING MEMBER
about:blank 3/3
