SUMAN CHUGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission), original complainant Smt. Suman Chugh has filed the present petition. The State Commission by this order has set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short the District Forum) allowing her request for extending the benefit arising out of the insurance policy with interest and dismissed her complaint.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/complainant s husband had taken a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent/Insurance Company, which was valid for a period of ten years w.e.f. 20th of January, 1997. It is the say of the petitioner/complainant that her husband while cleaning his licensed revolver accidentally fired the weapon resulting in his death. Information in this regard was given to the concerned police authorities. Post mortem was also conducted and the doctor had opined that the death had been caused due to bullet injury. The petitioner/complainant being the nominee of the life assured, therefore, preferred a claim before the respondent/Insurance Company and furnished the original policy and other relevant documents but her claim was not settled by the respondent/Insurance Company on one pretext or the other. In this background, finding no other options, she approached the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/Insurance Company to pay all the benefits under the policy with 9% interest and a cost of Rs.2000/-. The respondent/Insurance Company, who was arrayed as the opposite party before the District Forum, challenged the award of the District Forum in appeal before the State Commission, who vide the order impugned has set aside the order of the District Forum resulting in the dismissal of the complaint; thus, giving rise to the revision petition by the complainant.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Vipul Raheja, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant on admission and have considered his submissions. We have also carefully perused the records and the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission.