Smt. Sulakshna Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Smt. Sulakshna Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

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

31.12.2006. Respondent No. 2 issued a cover note on the

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