HADUBANDHU NAYAK Vs. MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, BBSR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client has impugned order dtd. 5/5/2018 as well as order dtd. 13/9/2021 confirming the earlier order in first appeal. He submits, the Consumer District Forum did not appreciate his client's case.

(2.) He submits, his client had taken a policy, which required monthly installment premium of Rs.27.71 to be paid for maturity value at Rs.10,000.00 on 9/12/1996. During subsistence of the policy, petitioner suffered vigilance proceeding against him. Inter alia, the policy document was seized and petitioner was suspended from service. Petitioner could not, at that time, pay the premium. After maturity date of the policy, petitioner stood acquitted. He resumed paying the premium and paid the entire aggregate policy period premium, lastly in December, 1997. This cannot be disputed. The insurance company, however, calculated maturity value of the policy on premium receipt during policy period and only paid Rs.18,039.00 and Rs.364.00 as panel interest. He submits, his client was entitled to more as the period, in which installment premium could not be paid, was by reason of the vigilance case. Petitioner stood acquitted. He prays for direction on issuance of notice and interim protection.

(3.) This Bench, following caution to the High Courts by order in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 524 had dismissed writ petitions directed against orders made under the Consumer Disputes Act. However, the Supreme Court by judgment dtd. 13/5/2022 in Civil Appeal no.3072 of 2022 (Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.) has now declared, it cannot be said that a writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court against order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under sec. 58(1)(a)(iii) of Consumer Disputes Act, 2019 is not maintainable.